The plaintiff cross-appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the defendant cross-appellee maintained possession and control over the sidewalk such that plaintiff’s claim sounded in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence. Compare Orel v. Uni-Rak Sales Co. Inc. , 454 Mich. 564, 563 N.W.2d 241 (1997), and Finazzo v. Fire Equip. Co. , 323 Mich. App. 620, 918 N.W.2d 200 (2018), with Fraim v. City Sewer of Flint , 474 Mich. 1101, 711 N.W.2d 83 (2006). In addition to the brief, the plaintiff shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2).

-------- Plaintiff also misplaces reliance on Garrett v. Sam H. Goodman Bldg. Co., Inc. , 474 Mich. 948, 948, 706 N.W.2d 202 (2005) ("[S]ummary disposition based on the ‘open and obvious’ doctrine was improper because neither defendant was the premises possessor."), and Fraim v. City Sewer of Flint , 474 Mich. 1101, 1101, 711 N.W.2d 83 (2006) ("The open and obvious doctrine is inapplicable to this case, because defendant did not possess or control the premises within which plaintiff was injured."). But reading the authority these summary disposition orders cite, we note that both orders stand for the proposition that the assertion of the open and obvious danger defense depends on the theory of liability being advanced.