Premises liability; Trespasser

In this premises liability case, the court reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and remanded. Plaintiff, a door-to-door salesman who fell on defendant’s steps, argued that “he was not a trespasser on defendant’s property.” The court held that the “trial court erred in finding that plaintiff was a trespasser. There was no factual dispute that [he] only approached defendant’s door to leave a flyer, and the front porch area of a single family home is customarily used by the public.” The court found that plaintiff “did not exceed the generally implied license granted to the public, and thus, there is no factual dispute regarding whether he was a licensee.” It also found that there was “no evidence of any ‘no trespassing’ or ‘no solicitors’ signs that could have potentially revoked defendant’s implied consent.” The court held that while “plaintiff admitted that defendant did not know plaintiff was coming to his house, defendant’s prior knowledge is not required for the implied license to approach a house and knock on the door.” It concluded that as “plaintiff was a licensee, the question then becomes what duties were owed to him and whether those duties were breached.” The court noted that these “issues were not addressed in the trial court since defendant was granted summary disposition after the court concluded plaintiff was a trespasser. These issues are best resolved initially in the trial court.”