Incident Date - 3/19/99; Suit Filed - 7/99;

Summary Disposition Granted - 2/8/01

Plaintiff, Antoinette Greenberg, was roller skating with her boyfriend at Shores Skateland on March 19, 1999. She and her boyfriend each rented skates. She had some problems with her initial pair of skates which she exchanged for a second pair. After seven to ten circuits on the second pair of skates, she contended that she again noticed some problems controlling her movement. She then fell sustaining her claimed injuries. She later filed suit against Defendant alleging that she fell as a result of a defect in the rental skate which she identified as uneven wear in the rental skate wheels. Plaintiff did not retain an expert. After extensive discovery which included Defendant's liability expert opinion confirming uneven rental skate wear does not affect the performance of the rental skate, the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that the alleged defect was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff's fall. On March 8, 2001, Judge Montgomery of the Macomb County Circuit Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition. Plaintiff did not appeal.

Incident Date - 7/1/99; Suit Filed - 8/11/00;

Summary Disposition Granted - 12/10/01

Plaintiff, Lisa Page, sustained her injury at Metro-Skate, Inc. as a non-skating patron when she tripped and fell (allegedly) over a roller skate lying in the aisle. She further alleged that it was "dark" in the off-skate floor aisle where she fell and the darkened conditions coupled with the presence of the roller skate constituted the dangerous condition which proximately cause her injury. The detailed cross examination at her deposition revealed that while conditions may have not been as bright as Plaintiff preferred, she would have been able to see the skate had she looked down. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that the roller skate which Plaintiff allegedly tripped over constituted an "open and obvious danger" abregating any duty to warn or protect Plaintiff. Pursuant to caselaw in the State of Michigan, Defendants have no duty to warn or protect a patron for open and obvious dangers unless there are special circumstances which render the condition unreasonably dangerous in spite of its obviousness. Defendant argued at the time of the Motion and the Court agreed that the presence of a roller skate in the aisle is not a "special circumstance" so as to avoid the Open and Obvious Danger Rule and, the Court accordingly granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition. Plaintiff has currently filed a Claim of Appeal.

Home || Trial Results || What's New || Firm Overview || Practice Areas || Attorney Profiles || Representative Clients || Contact Form || Email

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © 2012 by Anselmi & Mierzejewski, P.C. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.