Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                     Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    September 23, 2016                                                              Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    153311                                                                           Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    Bridget M. McCormack
    David F. Viviano
    Richard H. Bernstein
    Joan L. Larsen,
    Justices
    PAULETTE HELD,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v                                                     SC: 153311
    COA: 321786
    Ingham CC: 13-000241-NO
    NORTH SHORE CONDOMINIUM
    ASSOCIATION,
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    PURE GREEN LAWN AND TREE
    PROFESSIONALS, INC.,
    Defendant.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2016
    judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
    persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
    ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).
    I would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand
    this case to the Ingham Circuit Court for entry of a judgment in favor of defendant North
    Shore Condominium Association because the plastic landscape edging over which
    plaintiff fell was open and obvious. As Judge METER opined in his dissenting opinion, “a
    picture is worth a thousand words.” 1 The photographs of the area where plaintiff fell
    indicate that the edging can very clearly be seen curving around the sidewalk, as there
    1
    Held v North Shore Condo Ass’n, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
    Appeals, issued February 4, 2016 (Docket No. 321786) (METER, J., dissenting), p 1.
    2
    is a distinct color difference between the edging and the mulch. Thus, “an average
    person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered [the edging] upon casual
    inspection.” 2 Sometimes error in an unpublished opinion is so blatant, open, and obvious
    that it must be corrected to maintain clarity of the law for the bench and bar. This is such
    a case. I would reverse.
    MARKMAN, J., joins the statement of ZAHRA, J.
    2
    Hoffner v Lanctoe, 
    492 Mich 450
    , 461 (2012).
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    September 23, 2016
    s0920
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 153311

Filed Date: 9/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/26/2016