"Sharp" Observations

"Sharp" Observations

Auto Accident Attorney Michigan - "Sharp" Observations Good afternoon. Yesterday, I learned all about Auto Accident Attorney Michigan - "Sharp" Observations. Which may be very helpful to me and also you.

On August 8, 2006, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided the case of Sharp v Art Van Furniture, Inc., affirming a trial court decision to dismiss Mr. Scott's negligence claim on the ground that a wet health on the floor of an Art Van was open and obvious. The Appeals Court did not allow oral seminar of the case from the parties. What I said. It shouldn't be in conclusion that the true about Auto Accident Attorney Michigan. You check this out article for info on that need to know is Auto Accident Attorney Michigan. Auto Accident Attorney Michigan I have never considered myself a deep thinker on philosophical matters, legal or otherwise. In fact, I withdrew from a philosophy of Law class in my undergrad days, telling the professor that I frankly did not see the course as particularly relevant to what I perceived (in my ignorance) to be the modern custom of law. The trainer responded that, in such circumstances, I might want to rethink my plans to go to law school. Over a longish career, and until recently, I have always understanding I had the last laugh on him. In addition, I have never considered myself as a fire-breathing zealot on profit of a particular point of view in my practice. I have worked in the area of personal injury for a good part of my career, doing plaintiff work. Over the past 10 years, I have been a member of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association, off an on, mostly on, though my membership has lapsed on occasion. But, I could just as admittedly have become a career insurance defense lawyer, if a few interviews years ago had gone differently. I've never believed that all plaintiffs must always win or that all defendants must always lose, except when I recite the plaintiff, of course. In the last few years, any way I do find that I have come to root for all personal injury plaintiffs in all cases all the time, in the same way that I root for the 16 seed to beat the 1 seed every year in the Ncaa tournament. Most habitancy like to root for the underdog to beat the favorite, the diminutive college with no scholarships to beat the big time program with the big Tv and big shoe contract. Even with my diminutive natural gifts and skills, I feel lucky, nowadays, as a personal injury lawyer, to argue for the plaintiff than for the defendant. At least I can argue that my clients ordinarily act the way real human beings act in the real world. The defense bar has, in up-to-date years, been in case,granted with a bag-full of decisions from the appeals courts of this state, which set a standard of escort for Michigan citizens which, quite frankly, have diminutive connection to coarse behavior, coarse taste or coarse sense. No disrespect intended. Over the years, I have had opening to tell clients that a most theory of our tort law are not set out in the statute books. This, I tell them, is because in our coarse law system, the standard of inexpensive escort in any particular situation, is something that a inexpensive person should reasonably be able to do, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances in the real world. And, I suppose, what is inexpensive under most circumstances, should be something the midpoint person should be able to outline out for themselves based on coarse sense, without reference to a statute book. This determination is, no doubt, a stock of my life-long mystery in grasping the finer points of legal philosophy, but it makes some sense to me. coarse law, based on coarse experience, manufacture coarse sense. A naïve attitude to bring to the determination of up-to-date premises liability decisions, perhaps, but there it is. It is why I look at cases like Sharp with dismay, if no longer with surprise. The Sharp decision is quite short and is unpublished. The judges did not believe they were breaking new ground here. Among the one hundred-plus daily posts to the Mtla Listserv, since the day the decision was released, it has not merited a particular reference. All the data I have about this case is from the decision itself. It was not a case handled by my firm. Anyway, it appears that shortly after noon on January 7, 2003, Mr. Sharp along with his fiancée (who was carrying her 3 year old son) entered an Art Van store somewhere in Bay County. He had been to that store on roughly one hundred other occasions. (The Sharp house must have been very hard on the house furniture.) It was a wintry day, the decision states, and the ground outside was covered in slush. To quote: "As he approached and entered the store, Sharp was not finding for water that would have been tracked into the store that morning by others. Because he was not finding down, he did not see any water until after he slipped and fell just inside the second of two sets of automated duplicate doors....Sharp's fiancée, now his wife, walked beside him carrying her three-year old son, and had no problem with traction as she entered the store." In the course of legal events, Art Van moved for overview disposition, arguing: "...that the wet health of the floor was open and obvious, that it did not pose an unreasonable danger, and that Art Van did not have observation of the condition.". As I have already given away the ending, I'd like to comment here on Art Van's approach to the defense of this case. It filed a appeal alleging that there was no genuine issue of any material fact in this case and that those facts (looked at in the light most suitable to the plaintiff) pointed to two inescapable conclusions: The flaw was inescapable to Mr. Sharp, but Art Van had no reason to know of its existence. How can both conclusions be right? This is a coarse defense technique at present. I don't blame them, particularly, as the courts have entertained such arguments without batting an eye. As recently as last appeal day, I have argued a appeal taking admittedly the same approach. Again no blame to the attorney involved. The reasoning just seems to fly in the face of coarse sense. I do have a qoute with the logic employed by the courts in even inspecting this approach. overview habit motions are considered based on the assertion that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, right? Those facts are to be looked at in the light most suitable to the non-moving party, right? Well, I am now going to start employing the following approach to such motions. For purposes of the open and inescapable quantum of the motion, I am going to ask the court to accept the defendant's assertion that they had no observation of the condition. For purposes of the observation motion, I am going to ask the court to accept the defendant's assertion that the health was inescapable to the plaintiff. Shouldn't that be sufficient to create an issue of fact on both issues? We'll see. In a larger sense, how does it make sense that a customer, after taking two steps into a store, is held to have more knowledge of the health of the place than those who run the firm and have been there since it opened up? The Sharp decision does state that invitors, such as Art Van, owe a duty to customers to exercise inexpensive care to protect them from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a perilous health on the land, along with inspecting the premises and manufacture essential repairs or warning of discovered hazards. But, the court says, this does not expand to dangers so inescapable that the invitee can be thinkable, to scrutinize them himself. What is obvious, agreeing to up-to-date decisions, are conditions that an midpoint user with lowly brain would have discovered on casual inspection. It does seem that the respective duties of the parties are quite separate when looked at on paper. The owner has a duty to scrutinize and enunciate its premises for the protection of its customers. Not an unreasonable standard, as the store is asking habitancy to come in and spend its money with the store. Customers do not have such duty, they merely should be reasonably careful under the circumstances. Reasonably straightforward. up-to-date cases have changed the connection and duties of the parties. Invitees have been changed into all-knowing, all-powerful beings. In retention that the wet health was "open and obvious" to Mr. Sharp, the court held: "Water in a store entryway on a slushy January day in Michigan is a hazard analogous to that presented by ice and snow." The court said that commonly the hazards presented by ice and snow are open and obvious, and "do not levy a duty on the property owner to warn of or remove the hazard. inexpensive minds could not disagree that a slick outside in a store entryway should be thinkable, under these conditions." A sentence or two later the court stated: "...an midpoint person of lowly brain would be on observation of the possibility of water accumulation, or perhaps the proximity of water on his own shoes that could pose a risk of slipping". Now wait a diminutive here. Isn't an open inescapable health a bodily health inescapable to all? Or does this decision hold that a Michigan resident should expect ice, snow and water everywhere? The court didn't hold that this particular wet health was of such a nature that Mr. Sharp should have known about this specific health and, presumably avoided it. Mr. Sharp, as a Michigan resident, is on notice, generally, that while the winter, that it is potential that there is snow, ice and water everywhere. And the mere possibility is sufficient to impute knowledge of all such conditions to the customer. It also, apparently, absolves the owner of any duty to scrutinize or protect. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to forestall the owner from arguing that they had no reason to know of the condition. Gee, doesn't Art Van run businesses in Michigan while the wintertime? I have yet to see a decision where a reviewing court holds this to be relevant. Decisions have held that an open and inescapable health must be viewed from an objective viewpoint. The midpoint user is not necessarily the plaintiff in question. This helped a court in Michigan dismiss the case of a blind person who slipped on water on the floor of a restroom. The "average", midpoint user was not blind, so the court had no qoute in retention that the water on the floor was open and obvious, negating any duty from the cafeteria in question to that plaintiff. While retention that the standard is objective, the courts have also held that, as Michigan residents, we are assumed to have knowledge of the ever-present hazards of ice and snow in the winter. Does this mean that a visitor from Barbados will not be assumed to know of the possibility of snow, ice and water everywhere? Or does it mean that an midpoint user of lowly brain in Michigan is defined as a Michigan resident, with 20/20 vision? If so, knowledge of the hazards of ice and snow in a Michigan winter will be imputed to our tropical visitors. Given the current trend of cases, I assume that soon, all cases alleging defective lighting will be dismissed under the open and inescapable doctrine. As most of us are life-long residents of the planet Earth, we should know that, on average, it is dark fully half the time in an midpoint year. Therefore the danger of dark conditions and the conditions darkness will hide are imputed to all earth residents and firm owners need take no steps to warn of or remove the hazard. Because the reviewing courts of this state have held that the interior and outside scenery of the state is fraught with hazard, what is a reasonably thrifty person to do? If every footfall brings with it the possibility of danger, how does one counsel one's client to reasonably behave while Michigan winters, on the paved areas of Michigan's terrain, while Michigan darkness or in and about Michigan shop and restaurants? Look down, and nowhere but down, I suppose. But how do I see my destination, see potential hazards not at ground level, look for traffic, find items in a grocery store, talk with my companions, and most importantly, talk on my cell phone? Well, I answer, you can admittedly talk on your cell phone while finding down. As to the other aspects of normal, human activity mentioned, I say, I can't supply you with the first clue. I daresay, that if you were to watch an Appeals or consummate Court Judge off the bench, you would probably not find him or her finding directly down toward the location of his or her next thinkable, footfall. Yet such is the standard of behavior thinkable, of the rest of the citizens of this state as well as visitors from other parts of the planet. Walking on a sidewalk without stepping on a crack was once a childhood game. It is now the standard of escort for all citizens. It is good that the courts encourage us to keep in touch with our inner child. There used to be cases, and a jury instruction, about the duty of an owner of a self-serve store. Customers had a right to expect reasonably safe aisles as they looked to pick among the items the owner had displayed for purchase. No longer. You, as a customer, are thinkable, to look down at all times, in expectation of the possibility of spills, which, after all are to be thinkable, in a store. On the other hand, the store will deny knowing of such a health while the course of litigation. Well, until they find a way to display and stock double-stuff Oreos so that I can both search them and retrieve them while finding down, I will have to risk the danger involved. Perhaps my clients should be advised to stay indoors while the months from November until early April each year. perhaps we should advise that all businesses close while these months as well, as there can be no expectation that whatever of inexpensive brain will investment out while these months. To return to the Sharp case, in retention that there were no extra aspects to the health that would forestall dismissal under the open and inescapable doctrine, the court went on to say: "The types of injuries sustained in a slip and fall are not commonly classified as unreasonably dangerous." I used to think that there were perilous conditions and perilous situations, but not perilous injuries, unreasonable or otherwise. If what is meant is that there are commonly no serious injuries from slip and falls, I think coarse taste and data indicate otherwise. While not, admittedly, triple-checking sources, there are studies which show that there are more than 300,000 disabling slip and fall injuries in North America each year, and 20,000 fatalities. That seems relatively serious to me. By the way, what does "unreasonably dangerous" mean, anyway? When is a health "reasonably" dangerous? Is a reasonably careful person thinkable, not to encounter unreasonably perilous conditions, but thinkable, to encounter inexpensive dangers? I have mystery explaining that one to my clients, especially the reasonably captivating ones. This brings me to one of my personal favorites aspects of the open and inescapable discussion. firm owners now claim that the invitee did not have to come to their firm or could have come back other day. firm owners argue that the reasonably thrifty person would not patronize their business. "You should not have come to my store (though open for business)", they say. Makes good economic sense to me. My client was not obligated to leave her apartment in order to buy milk and bread after waiting three days for the building's lot to be plowed, it has been argued. Her fault for not laying in six months of hardtack and distilled water in early October, I guess. This seminar has even served as a basis to dismiss the case of a employee who slipped and fell on ice while manufacture a ordinarily scheduled pick-up and delivery to a firm on her route. In fact, that dismissal was just upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 17, 2006. Please see Stanton v Fitness Management, Court of Appeals No. 267623. The Court said the plaintiff could have chosen not to confront the danger by not entering the building, not doing her job and not serving her employer's customer. To quote: "Would she have been obligated to enter a burning building in order to make the pickup?" And if Johnny Jones jumped off the Empire State Building, would you have to jump off the Empire State Building? While we all must know the realities of winters in Michigan, we must apparently remain blind to the realities of life in a capitalist economic system. And, I guess, act accordingly. whatever happened to the Protestant work ethic? Or the philosophy of comparative negligence, come to that. If a person does investment out in the winter, one is absolute guarantor of one's own safety. Because, apparently, the reviewing courts of this state have not only imputed citizens with exquisite knowledge, but also assume that all citizens have the talents of an Olympic skater or mountain goat, when it comes to dealing with ice and snow. Wait, I withdraw the Olympic skater reference. I have seen them fall. Citizens are to meet these conditions at all times, without injury to themselves. I firmly believe that our courts are out of touch with normal human taste in this area of the law. I admittedly don't think that our courts admittedly expect that citizens will hunker down and not live their lives when it gets dark, rains, or snows. I am sure that courts do not routinely grant adjournments to litigants who call and say they can't come to court because their apartment parking lot hasn't been cleared. Or do the consummate Court's docket operate guidelines constitute a "special aspect"? One can be grateful, at least, that this determination has not (yet) made its way to auto negligence cases. The hazards of driving are open and obvious. You didn't have to drive to your mother's house that day, or at that time, or by that route. You could have walked there. You should have thinkable, the possibility of that driver could have cut you off. You saw him before the accident, didn't you? As a habitancy of the State of Michigan, the auto capital of the world, you are aware of the possibility of serious injury in a car based on the negligence of person else, even if you are careful? How have we come to this? How has a standard of conduct, so at odds with ordinarily thinkable, human behavior, become the law of this state. Theories abound. Quite possibly, in an attempt to overturn an aberrational result (usually exclusively used to recapitulate a plaintiff verdict), the result achieved was considered more prominent than the reasoning used to get there. Unfortunately, as often happens, faulty reasoning becomes the basis of future decisions, and in the rush to get to one result, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, and reason and coarse sense get thrown out as well. Sound determination gives way to pigeon-holing cases with a label, "open and obvious", in this particular instance. In the end, the citizens of this state, and visitors from other parts of the planet are not well served, when the courts hold that invitors have a duty to their invitees, but there are virtually no instances when that duty, even if admittedly breached, has any consequences. Many attorneys are declining premises liability cases at present, telling clients that the courts of this state leave them up a inescapable body of water, without a inescapable implement. However, I believe these claims should continue to be filed, and that one day coarse sense and recognition of how real humans act in real situations, will again be relevant in this area of the law. This may not happen within lives in being plus twenty-one years, to use an old Rule Against Perpetuities joke, but it will happen, and there will need to be a case or line of cases to make it happen. Until that time, seminar of the state of Michigan premises liability law might be good remarkable for "open-mike night" at a local comedy club. I am going to stop writing now, as the passage of time only serves to supply more material, and publications to have editorial guidelines governing the length of submissions. Do I expect to provoke a response with this article? Absolutely. Phone rings. "Mike Butler speaking." "Mr. Butler, I am calling on profit of the Mtla. person here saw your article. We have checked our records, and we note that your dues are..." I hope you will get new knowledge about Auto Accident Attorney Michigan. Where you possibly can put to easy use in your evryday life. And most of all, your reaction is passed about Auto Accident Attorney Michigan. Read more.. "Sharp" Observations.