Open and Obvious: The Case to Restore Property Owner Protections
The Problem
In2023, theMichigan Supreme Court overturned the longstanding "open and obvious" defense in premises liability cases. Michigan is now one of just nine states without this safeguard — a national outlier. The result: more litigation exposure, greater uncertainty and higher costs for property owners of every size.
Definition
The " open and obvious" doctrine was a longstanding premises liability protection for hazards on properties deemed “open and obvious” to the average person, like a slippery patch of ice on a sidewalk or a pothole in the parking lot. This standard protected Michigan from courtroom backlogs, and discouraged frivolous lawsuits against property owners.
The Solution
Restorereasonable protections that curb lawsuit abuse while preserving fair recourse for people truly harmed by negligence. The Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform supports efforts to reinstate key elements of open and obvious and return balance and predictability to Michigan’s legal system.
House Bill 4582 is a needed step — delivering protections for property owners while keeping legitimate claims intact.
How does open and obvious impact me if I don't own property? Without an open and obvious safeguard, Michigan employers face higher liability and insurance costs — forcing tough trade-offs like fewer jobs, delayed investments or higher prices. Property owners face the same squeeze, with costs often passed on to renters and commercial tenants. Do other states have open and obvious property protections? 41 states retain some form of open and obvious safeguards in premises liability. Michigan is among just nine without it — making our state a national outlier and magnet for frivolous lawsuits.
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online