Summary
remanding the case because the open and obvious danger doctrine could not be employed to avoid the application of a duty established by statute
Summary of this case from Rockov v. Lilley Pointe Condo. Ass'nOpinion
No. 120731.
December 26, 2002.
COA: 204411, Monroe CC: 95-003133-NO
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the December 14, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND the case to the Court of Appeals for a determination whether the defendants violated the "reasonable repair" requirement of MCL 554.139(1)(b). The open and obvious doctrine cannot be used to avoid a specific statutory duty. Jones v Enertel, Inc, 467 Mich. 266, 270 (2002). If necessary, the Court of Appeals may, while retaining jurisdiction, remand the case to the trial court for resolution of any factual dispute regarding the applicability of MCL 554.139(1)(b).
We retain jurisdiction.