Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

Negligence Cases in the News: Black Ice and Slip-and-fall

Negligence Cases in the News:

Personal Injury — Black Ice and Slip-and-fall

 

It’s a common occurrence in Michigan. In the winter time frequently pavement will become encased in invisible “black ice.” Due to its invisibility, black ice is a leading cause of winter time personal injury from car crashes to slip-and-falls.
Generally, in Michigan a premises owner does not have a duty to warn a shopper or even clear off snow or ice if it is visible upon a casual inspection. The Courts in Michigan have held that it is the pedestrian or shopper’s duty to avoid such hazardous conditions or to accept the consequences of a slip and fall if the lot is visibly snow covered.
On the other hand, black ice has become a recognized exception to this general rule.
In Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Company, the business visitor, Mrs. Slaughter, injured her back when she slipped and fell at the Defendant’s gas station. The court of Appeals affirmed (agreed with) the decision of the trial court that black ice was an exception to the open and obvious doctrine. The Court reasoned that by definition black ice was “not open and obvious.”

 

     “Plaintiff contends that under the circumstances of this case, she had no warning of icy conditions on defendant’s premises and that, the condition therefore was not open and obvious. Further, plaintiff contends that special circumstances existed because the condition posed an unreasonable risk and was unavoidable.

 

     To determine whether black ice is open and obvious, one must consider the logic behind the open and obvious danger doctrine, which, as stated earlier, is that “an obvious danger is no danger to a reasonably careful person.” Novotney, supra at 474. We are asked to determine whether “an average user with ordinary intelligence” would be able to discover black ice “upon casual inspection,” absent the presence of snow. Id. at 475.

 

     Perhaps the best way to ascertain whether black ice is open and obvious is to examine the characteristics of black ice. Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed), p151, describes black ice as “a thin, nearly invisible layer of ice on a dark surface (as a paved road or a body of water) that is difficult to see.” The American Heritage Diction of the English Language (4th ed) p191, defines black ice as “[a] thin, nearly invisible coating of ice that forms on paved surfaces.” The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed), p172, describes it as “a transparent coating of ice, found esp. on a road or other paved surface.” The American Century Dictionary (2005), p60, defines it as a “thin layer of invisible ice on a road, etc.”

 

     The Overriding principle behind the many definitions of black ice is that it is invisible or nearly invisible, transparent, or nearly transparent. Such definition is inherently inconsistent with the open and obvious danger doctrine. Consequently, we decline to extend the doctrine to black ice without evidence that the black ice in question would have been visible on casual inspection before the fall or without other indicia of a potentially hazardous condition.”

 

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury from a slip and fall or car accident related to black ice, you may have a remedy in court for monetary compensation. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC has represented many victims of slip and falls. Please feel free to call Guy Vining for a free and confidential appointment to discuss your rights.

 

[Guy Vining practices personal injury law from his Metro-Detroit office in Taylor, Michigan. He has represented clients in personal injury actions for over 25 years in such areas as: car, boat, motorcycle, and truck accidents; slip, trip, and falls including black ice and defective design; medical and dental malpractice, denial of insurance benefits for wages, medical and home assistance to automobile accident victims.]

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Falls and Black Ice

Personal Injury Cases in the News:
Personal Injury — Falls and Black Ice

 

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC was able to settle a significant personal injury case caused by a store owner’s failure to use proper care in maintaining its parking lot. The good result was obtained because legal discovery disclosed another shopper was injured a few hours earlier. When that fact was discovered from the Defendant’s records subpoenas were issued to require that individual to give a deposition (a statement under oath).

 

The deposition was crucial because one of the important issues in such a case is notice. If the company in charge of the premises does not have notice of the hazard which caused the personal injury is near the Defendant can escape liability. In this case, however, the witness testified that she was injured due to icy conditions and reported it to the store management. Other records established that Plaintiff was injured about two hours later, and that in the intervening time, no de-icing agents were put down for the safety of customers.

 

 Icy winter conditions are a fact of life in Michigan. This means that shoppers and pedestrians must be careful. However, a shop owner owes a duty to help protect those that come to do business. The law provides that such a store owner should use reasonable care if they receive a notice of a hazardous condition. Although belittled on television and in comedy routines, there is nothing funny about slip-and-falls. These types of hazards are a leading cause of serious personal injury and even death.

 

If you or a loved one have been injured on a defective premises, call Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group today for a no-cost consultation.

 

[Guy Vining practices personal injury law from his Metro-Detroit office in Taylor, Michigan. He has represented clients in personal injury actions for over 25 years in such areas as: car, boat, motorcycle, and truck accidents; slip, trip, and falls including black ice and defective design; medical and dental malpractice, denial of insurance benefits for wages, medical and home assistance to automobile accident victims.]

Negligence Cases in the News: Bus Accident Cases

Negligence Cases in the News:
Bus Accident Cases

     The Long Beach Press reported this month that a lawsuit has been filed by families against two California bus companies. Seven people were killed when a tour bus lost its brakes coming down a mountain.

 

In Michigan, the law also imposes a duty upon public transportation companies to maintain their buses in good repair to avoid personal injury. The same is true with regard to the general safe operation of buses and cabs for the safety of their paying customers and the general public.

 

If you or a loved one are injured while a passenger on a local bus or cab through negligence of the driver or a safety defect, you may wish to speak with a lawyer to discuss your rights.

 

Guy Vining, an experienced personal injury attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member or friend would like a no-obligation, no cost, consultation/financial analysis, just call or Email Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C. to schedule a meeting.

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Product Defects

Personal Injury Cases in the News:

 

Product Defects

 

     On February 3, 2013 The Fresno Bee reported that a California resident was awarded $1,000,000.00 in the settlement of his personal injury case. His arm was crushed while he was working in a watermelon processing plant, forcing him to undergo several surgeries. While his condition is stable, it is likely that he will never be able to do labor again.

 

     In Michigan, there are certain laws that protect workers on the clock and those at home from potentially harmful products. It’s called product liability, as governed by MCL 600.2946. In such cases, one must be able to prove a few things, as outlined by Edward M. Swartz in “Proof of Product Defect“:

 

     “The plaintiff’s case rests on three issues of fact: whether there is (1) a defect, (2) a proximate cause, and (3) damages. The plaintiff’s use of the product may not be a separate issue, only evidence that a defect or proximate cause was not present.

***

     A defect need not be only a broken part. The concept includes: improper design, improper choice of materials or components, failure to use safety devices, inadequate warnings, inadequate instructions, improper assembly and manufacture, and inadequate advertising and marketing. A defect may exist in any phase of production which may affect safety, including manufacture, assembly, design, materials, selection of component parts, inspection, packaging, instructions, warnings, promotion, certification, and testing.”

 

If you or a loved one have been injured by a potentially defective product, call Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group today for no-cost consultation.

 

[Guy Vining, a personal injury attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Dog Bite Cases

Personal Injury Cases in the News

Dog Bite Cases

 

     The old adage is wrong. It used to be said that every dog is entitled to one bite. In other words, no liability unless the owner knows of a dangerous propensity. However, that is not what the statute says. It provides for almost strict liability at MCL 287.351, which states:

 

“Sec. 1.(1) If a dog bites a person, without provocations while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.

 

Sec. 1.(2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner’s property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or if the person is on the owner’s property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.”

 

     If you or a loved one have suffered an injury from a dog, or other animal, you may have a remedy in court for monetary compensation. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC has represented a dozen or more victims of animal attacks with settlements ranging from $15,000 to more than $300,000. Please feel free to call Guy Vining for a free and confidential appointment to discuss your rights.

 

[Guy Vining practices personal injury law from his Metro-Detroit office in Taylor, Michigan. He has represented clients in personal injury actions for over 25 years in such areas as: car, boat, motorcycle, and truck accidents; slip, trip, and falls including black ice and defective design; medical and dental malpractice, denial of insurance benefits for wages, medical and home assistance to automobile accident victims.]

Employment Cases in the News

Employment Cases in the News

 

     The Statesman Journal (Oregon) recently reported that a government employee filed a claim for public policy discharge against her employer. In Michigan a discharge against public policy is an exception to the employment at will rule. Generally, an employee, not in a union, or not protected by a written contract has no protection against non-discriminatory discharges.

 

     However, in Michigan even such an at-will employee may not be terminated for the employer’s violation of a public policy. For an example, an employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law. Such a case was Trombetta v. Detroit, T&IR, Co., 81 Mich App 489 (1979). In fact, it expressly affirmed the following principal:

 

“Such a cause of action has been found to be implied where the alleged reason for the discharge of the employee was failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment. Thus, in [citation omitted], the Court said that it would be impermissible to discharge an employee for refusing to falsify pollution control reports that were required to be filed with the state.”

***

“This court has recognized exceptions to the well established rule that at-will employment contracts are terminable at any time for any reason by either party. These exceptions were created to present individuals from contravening the public policy of this state. It is without question that the public policy of this state does not condone attempts to violate its duly enacted laws.”

 

     If you or a loved one have been fired for refusing to follow an illegal order at work, call Guy Vining.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Dog Bite Cases

Personal Injury Cases in the News:

Dog Bite Cases

 

     A good discussion of the law of dog bite cases is found in Hill v. Sacks, 256 Mich App 443 (2003). In that case, Plaintiff’s young child was awarded a judgment by a jury in Monroe County, Michigan. This judgment was reviewed by and affirmed (agreed to) by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

 

     The case was brought pursuant to the so-called dog bite statute, MCL 287.351. The Court of Appeals noted that the statute creates almost absolute liability against the owner of a dog for a bite unless the owner can establish “provocation.” Where the animal is not provoked the owner may not successfully argue that the injured person was partly to blame or what judges call comparative fault. In other words — unless there is provocation the victim’s comparative fault will not count as damages. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied the owner’s appeal and held:

 

“Similarly, we conclude that the dog-bite statute does not allow for consideration of any comparative negligence on the part of the dog-bite victim, excluding possibly where the negligence may relate to the defense of provocation. The dog-bite statute by its clear and unequivocal language does not allow consideration of any negligence or fault, as that term is generally used, on the part of the owner of the dog. If the other considerations contained in the dog-bite statute are satisfied, there i no liability where provocation exists, and there is liability where provocation is lacking.” Bradacs, supra at 267.

If you or a loved one have suffered an injury from a dog, or other animal, you may have a remedy in court for monetary compensation. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC has represented a dozen or more victims of animal attacks with settlements ranging from $15,000 to more than $300,000. Please feel free to call Guy Vining for a free and confidential appointment to discuss your rights.

[Guy Vining practices personal injury law from his Metro-Detroit office in Taylor, Michigan. He has represented clients in personal injury actions for over 25 years in such areas as: car, boat, motorcycle, and truck accidents; slip, trip, and falls including black ice and defective design; medical and dental malpractice, denial of insurance benefits for wages, medical and home assistance to automobile accident victims.]

Business Cases in the News: Shareholder Oppression

Business Cases in the News:

 

Shareholder Oppression  

 

     In the recent (unpublished) case of Berger v. Katz, Case No.: 293880 the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court of Michigan, affirmed (agreed with) significant relief afforded to the minority shareholder. In doing so the Court of Appeals swept aside the argument of the Defendants that the minority shareholders were not entitled to relief under MCL 450.1489 because all of their decisions and conduct was authorized by the bylaws.  The Court of Appeals noted that even authorized and legal decisions could still be oppressive to the minority shareholders.

 

     In reaching their decision, the Court of Appeals looked at the statutory language:

 

MCL 450.1489 provides, in relevant part:

 

(1) A shareholder may bring an action in the circuit court of the county in which the principal place of business or registered office of the corporation is located to establish that the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are illegal, fraudulent, or willfully unfair and oppressive to the corporation or to the shareholder…

*****

(3) As used in this section, “willfully unfair and oppressive conduct” means a continuing course of conduct or a significant action or series of actions that substantially interferes with the interest of the shareholder as a shareholder. Willfully unfair and oppressive conduct may include the termination of employment or limitation on employment benefits to the extent that the actions interfere with distributions or other shareholder interests disproportionately as to the affected shareholder. The term does not include conduct or actions that are permitted by an agreement, the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, or a consistently applied written corporate policy or procedure.

 

     If you or a loved one are a victim of oppressive conduct, call Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, for a discrete and no charge consultation. Elements of oppressive conduct found by various courts include: being denied notices, changes in bylaws and articles of incorporation, insider contracts, salary elimination, termination of employment, issuing stock without need the corporation, significant pay and benefit increases to those in control of the corporation and denying the minority shareholders a voice in management.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented shareholders in stock court actions including the Court of Appeals. All initial consultations are confidential and without charge. Please feel free to call.

Personal Injury Cases in the News

Personal Injury Cases in the News

 

     The Chicago Tribune on February 7, 2013 reported that a family of a man who died after a surgery filed suit. Specifically, the man under went surgery to repair a hernia and died 6 days later. The lawsuit alleges that the surgeon and the hospital were negligent in failing to properly monitor his condition and treat severe colon inflammation, thus creating a personal injury.

 

     In Michigan, medical negligence, a form of personal injury, cases are referred to as medical malpractice. Such suits allege that the medical professionals and institutions failed to do something that are outside of the standard of care under the circumstances of the case. Medical malpractice cases must be carefully investigated and promptly filed. The statute of limitations for such cases is only two years.

 

     If you or a loved on have a question about medical, dental, or other professional malpractice, just call Guy Vining. Guy Vining is a personal injury attorney who serves Metro-Detroit and the Downriver communities of Rockwood, Brownstown, Woodhaven, Grosse Ile, Gibraltar, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Wyandotte, Lincoln Park, Allen Park, Dearborn, Ecorse, Taylor, and Romulus. All initial consultations are free of charge and representation is on a contingency fee basis so that you will not have to pay attorney fees out of pocket.

 

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Business Cases in the News: Shareholder Oppression

Business Cases in the News:

 Shareholder Oppression

 

     In an unpublished opinion last year in Berger v. Katz, Case No.: 291663, the Michigan Court of Appeals sent a strong message to the business community that it would liberally enforce the provisions of MCL 450.1489. That statute gives a remedy to minority shareholders who have suffered  shareholder oppression at the hands of the majority shareholders.

 

     In Berger, the Court of Appeals found evidence that Defendants stopped making payments to Plaintiff, no longer sought his input on corporation matters and substantially increased their salaries at his expense was sufficient to support a claim, for among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. In that regard the Court held:

 

     “Majority Shareholders in a corporation owe “the utmost good faith in its control and management as to the minority and it is the essence of this trust that it must be so managed so as to produce to each shareholder, the best possible return upon his investment.” Salvador v. Connor, 87 Mich App 664, 675; 276 NW2d 458 (1978), quoting 6 Callaghan’s Michigan Civil Jurisprudence (2d ed), §166, p 365. Where the evidence shows that majority shareholders improperly diverted corporate funds, a breach of fiduciary duty of the majority shareholders can be found. Salvador, 87 Mich App at 675-677.”

 

     If you or a loved one are involved in a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) and need assistance, just call Guy Vining. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, has assisted many minority shareholders in cases involving oppressive conduct of the majority shareholders. Your initial meeting will be without any charges and strictly confidential. Many of these cases can be prosecuted on a contingency fee basis so that you will not pay an attorney fee unless there is a favorable financial outcome.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation