Categories: Michigan Supreme Court Opinions

GARRETT v. SAM H GOODMAN BUILDING COMPANY, INC., 474 Mich. 948 (2005)

706 N.W.2d 202

NANCY GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAM H. GOODMAN BUILDING COMPANY, INC., and DONALD BRYANT, d/b/a D B CEMENT, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 128951.Supreme Court of Michigan.
December 8, 2005.

Summary Dispositions

SC: 128951, COA: 251793.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals affirmance of the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant Sam H. Goodman Building Company, Inc., and we remand this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings. Summary disposition should not have been granted for defendant Goodman Building because it did not move for summary disposition. Further, summary disposition based on the “open and obvious” doctrine was improper because neither defendant was the premises possessor. Ghaffari v. Turner Constr Co, 473 Mich 16, 23 (2005). The Court of Appeals erred in applying Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460
(2004), to defendant Goodman Building because it and plaintiff were in contractual privity. In all further respects, leave to appeal is denied.

jdjungle