STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SUSAN BLACKWELL, FOR PUBLICATION
January 31, 2017
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 328929
Oakland Circuit Court
DEAN FRANCHI and DEBRA FRANCHI, LC No. 14-141562-NI
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and GLEICHER and SHAPIRO, JJ.
K. F. KELLY (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The relevant inquiry is not whether the step was open and obvious,
but whether the dark room was open and obvious.
I agree with the majority that plaintiff was a licensee for whom defendants had an
obligation to warn of hidden dangers. At the heart of this matter is what constituted the “danger”
to plaintiff – the unexceptional 8-inch step or the dark room? At oral argument, plaintiff’s
attorney conceded that there was absolutely nothing remarkable about the step. Counsel
specifically acknowledged that it was a normal 8-inch step that, had the room been properly lit,
would have been open and obvious. Plaintiff claims that the step was a danger because it was
“unknown.” However, it was unknown because plaintiff purposefully entered a dark room to
confront unidentified dangers. The danger was not the stairs, but the dark room itself, which
could have contained a variety of other unspecified and common-place “dangers,” such as
laundry baskets or toys. The fact that the room was not lit was open and obvious. Plaintiff
should have realized the danger entering a dark and unknown room posed. I would affirm
summary disposition in defendants’ favor.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-1-