Premises Liability — Trespasser – RUA

Premises Liability — Trespasser – RUA

Where a plaintiff was injured while riding a bicycle through a campground, an award of summary disposition in favor of the defendants should be affirmed, as the trial court did not err when it concluded that the plaintiff was trespassing at the time of his injury.

“This case arises from a bicycle accident in which plaintiff Darrell Davies was injured when he rode his bicycle over a speed bump on defendant District Center Board of the Michigan District Church of the Nazarene’s camp property. On the day of the accident, Darrell and two friends rode their bicycles from Portage, Michigan to defendant’s property in Vicksburg, Michigan. The property, known as the Indian Lake Nazarene Camp, is a campground and ‘covenant community’ that includes outdoor spaces for tents and RVs, as well as homes in which residents reside as leaseholders. Defendant’s property is private property, which Darrell knew by the fact that the sign leading to the entrance of the camp stated so.

“Although Darrell stated he rode his bicycle through defendant’s property many times before, he never encountered speed bumps on the roadways. However, on the date in question, the group of riders observed two speed bumps on Victory Street in defendant’s property. The group passed over the first speed bump without issue; however, as Darrell rode over the second speed bump, he fell off of his bicycle and was injured. According to Darrell, the second speed bump was improperly installed because it was not set at an angle perpendicular to the road.

“Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint that asserted claims of ordinary negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium on behalf of plaintiff Nancy Davies, Darrell’s wife. Defendant moved for summary disposition on the grounds that the recreational land use act (‘RUA’), MCL 324.73301, barred plaintiff’s claim because that statute only permitted liability where it was shown the defendant acted with gross negligence or willful and wonton misconduct. Defendant also argued that Darrell was trespassing at the time he was injured and was, therefore, not owed any duties as a licensee or invitee. Lastly, defendant argued that even if Darrell were an invitee, the open and obvious doctrine barred his claim.

“After a hearing on defendant’s motion, the trial court agreed with defendant’s arguments and granted summary disposition in defendant’s favor and dismissed the case.

“Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s motion because their complaint stated claims for both premises liability and ordinary negligence. Plaintiffs maintain that their negligence claim should not have been dismissed because such a claim is viable when the defendant’s conduct on the land causes an injury. We disagree.

“Next, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred when it concluded that Darrell was trespassing at the time of his injury. Plaintiffs assert that the ‘Private Property’ sign at the entrance to the property had no legal effect to warn Darrell he was not permitted to trespass and that defendant’s acquiescence in permitting uninvited guests on the land converted Darrell’s status to that of a licensee. We disagree.

“Lastly, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it concluded that the RUA applied to their claims. First, plaintiffs argue that the RUA is inapplicable because under Wymer v Holmes, 429 Mich 66; 412 NW2d 213 (1987), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the RUA was not intended to apply to urban and suburban tracts. Plaintiffs also argue that the RUA does not apply because the activity in question, bicycling, was not a recreational activity contemplated by the RUA. We disagree.”

Concurring judge’s comments

MARIANI, J. (concurring). “I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Recreational Land Use Act (RUA) applies to and forecloses plaintiffs’ claims in this case, but write separately to confirm that this conclusion holds under the analytical framework articulated in Rott v Rott, 508 Mich 274; 972 NW2d 789 (2021).

“I write separately also to note that this conclusion is seemingly dispositive in itself of plaintiffs’ claims, and does not depend on whether the trial court properly concluded that the claims sound in premises liability or that Darrell was trespassing at the time of his injury. … Accordingly, I would not reach these other claims of error.”

Davies v. Dist. Ctr. Bd. of the Michigan Dist. Church of the Nazarene; MiLW 08-108376, 6 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Gadola, J., K. F. Kelly, J.; Mariani, J., concurring; on appeal from Kalamazoo Circuit Court; Christopher P. Desmond for appellant; Joseph Fraser for appellee.

Read More: https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2024/09/13/premises-liability-trespasser-rua/