Negligence; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Premises liability; Possession & control; Derbabian v S & C Snowplowing, Inc; Distinguishing Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co; General negligence; Finazzo v Fire Equip Co; Waiver

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-airline summary disposition of plaintiff-employee’s premises-liability claim, but did err by granting it summary disposition of plaintiff’s general negligence claim. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained while working at a customer service agent at the airport. The trial court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion for summary disposition finding that the premises liability claim lacked merit, but that there remained a question of fact as to whether its policy of traversing a conveyor belt constituted general negligence. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by dismissing her premises liability claim because defendant was in possession and control of the ticket counter when she was injured. “Plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant had possession and control of the premises at issue, or that there is a genuine issue of material fact in that regard.” However, the court agreed with the trial court that defendant failed to show it was entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s general negligence claim. “[P]laintiff can—and did—bring a general-negligence claim premised on the distinct, common-law duty that defendant owed to act with due care and not unreasonably endanger others. And while plaintiff’s general-negligence claim overlaps with her premises-liability one and is correspondingly precluded to some extent, it also sets forth allegations that defendant breached its common-law duty through several actions or inactions involving how it chose to organize and run its workplace and how it trained and directed its workers. Those allegations of negligent conduct on the premises at issue do not depend, for their duty, on defendant’s status as possessor of the premises, and they are not foreclosed as a matter of law simply because defendant lacked that status.” It also agreed with plaintiff that defendant failed to raise its alternative argument in its motion for summary disposition and therefore waived it. Affirmed.