Burnett v. Bruner
247 Mich App 365, 636 N.W.2nd 773
Elizabeth Kingston
10/21/2009
Burnett v Bruner
247 Mich App 365, 636 N.W.2nd 773
(2001)
Facts: The plaintiff, R. Celestia Burnett, and her husband were visiting Michigan from their home in Florida in
order to see their daughter, Martha. For the past several years, Martha had been dating Michael, the son of the
defendant, Bernadine Bruner. Michael Bruner invited the plaintiff and her husband to his mother’s home. Though
the plaintiff had visited the defendant’s home several times, on this occasion, when Michael was leading the plaintiff
across a snowy yard, she stepped in a depression caused by tire tracks that had been covered with snow. This caused
her to fall and break her hip. The plaintiff had visited the house a week before snow covered the tracks, but it is
arguable if she noticed them, as she remained in her vehicle for the entire visit. Curiously, in the different versions
of the complaint, the plaintiff’s cause for the fall varied (at first, it was ice on the driveway, then an elevation in the
driveway, and then finally the tire tracks under the snow.) Excavation the previous fall as well as the parking of
vehicles had created tire tracks and ruts in the front yard. Also, there was no walkway leading from the driveway to
the door, so the defendant as well as her family and guests had to cross through the yard to enter the home.
Procedural History: After the incident, the defendant filed a premises liability action against the defendant. Though
the defendant motioned for a summary disposition, it was denied and the case went to a jury trial, where the plaintiff
was awarded $200,000 in damages. The defendant motioned for a new trial as well as a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict, but both were denied. The defendant then appealed.
Issue: Does a landowner owe a duty to a licensee to inspect the land for potential dangers and repair them before the
visit of the licensee? Were the jury instructions in the trial insufficient to explain the landowner/licensee
relationship?
Holding: No, a landowner does not owe a duty to a licensee to inspect the land for potential dangers and repair them
before the visit of the licensee. Also, the jury instructions were insufficient to explain the landowner/licensee
relationships in the trial.
Reasoning: According to Preston v Sleziak, the possessor of the property is only liable for physical harm done to a
licensee caused by the land itself if three conditions are involved: (1) the possessor knows of the land’s condition,
that it provides unreasonable risk of harm, and that the licensee will not discover the danger; (2) the possessor fails
to warn the licensee of the condition and risk, or fails to take reasonable care to fix the dangerous condition of the
property; and (3), the licensee does not have reason to know about the condition of the land and the potential harm.
The Supreme Court went on to clarify that while the possessor should take reasonable care to fix dangerous
conditions, the licensee is a guest and therefore should not expect that he or she gets special treatment and
preparation. The licensee is entitled to only the same safety precautions that the landowner gives to himself or his
family and thus the licensee must accept the property as the landowner uses it. Thus, because of the facts of Preston
v Sleziak stating that a licensee is a guest and must accept the premises as the landowner uses them, it is possible to
come to the conclusion that a landowner does not owe a duty to a licensee to inspect the land for potential dangers
and repair them before the visit of the licensee.
The instruction given to the jury in the case explained that the landowner owed a duty to the licensee to warn her of
dangerous conditions, but they were not told that the landowner was not legally bound to examine the land for any
hazardous conditions and repair them before the visit of the licensee. Because of this, it is impossible to tell if the
jury reached its decision on the fact that there was no warning of the condition or on the fact that the defendant did
not adequately repair her property before the licensee’s visit. Thus, these were inadequate instructions about the
licensee/landowner relationship for the jury, and substantial justice requires that the case be reversed.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.