Sandra Foster v. M & H Party Store Inc

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SANDRA FOSTER and WILLIAM FOSTER, UNPUBLISHED February 16, 2017 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 328283 Monroe Circuit Court M & H PARTY STORE, INC., LC No. 14-036470-NI Defendant-Appellee. Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and SAAD and METER, JJ. STEPHENS, P.J. (Concurring). I adopt the reasoning of Quinto v Woodward Detroit CVS, 305 Mich App 73; 850 NW2d 642 (2014), disapproving Kennedy’s1 application of the open and obvious doctrine to shopkeepers. However, the trial court here based its ruling not on whether the puddle was open and obvious, but on a finding that defendant met its duty to warn invitees by posting wet-floor signs. Plaintiffs’ argument that the continuous placement of the signs was a special aspect was an indirect assertion that the warnings were inadequate or ineffective. I agree with the majority that this argument was not well developed or supported by material facts or citation. I write separately only to note that the clear liquid was not open or obvious and that the adequacy of warnings in such circumstances, when supported by competent evidence, can defeat a motion brought under MCR 2.116 (C)(8) and (10). Such was not the case here. /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens 1 Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 274 Mich App 710; 737 NW2d 179 (2007). -1-