Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Premises Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears divided testimony on HB 4582 to restore 'open-and-obvious' rule in premises-liability cases
Summary
House Bill 4582 would restore the "open and obvious" threshold in Michigan premises-liability law; business groups urged the committee to pass it to curb litigation and insurance costs, while trial lawyers warned it would reduce safety and limit access to courts.
Representative Nyar introduced House Bill 4582 to reinstate the "open-and-obvious" doctrine in Michigan premises-liability law, saying the change would restore clarity and predictability for property owners and small businesses after 2023 Michigan Supreme Court rulings. The sponsor framed the bill as a response to a shift that now requires judges and juries to engage in more subjective fact-finding instead of dismissing meritless claims early.
Supporters who testified included Amanda Fisher, Michigan state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Randy Gross of the Michigan Chamber, and Jacob Manning of the Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM). Fisher said the recent court decisions "effectively eliminated the open and obvious doctrine" and warned that the resulting subjective standard "increases litigation costs and clogs judicial resources". She cited a Perryman Group estimate that Michigan "lost over 97,000 jobs" and that residents paid "approximately $10.46 dollars per person in a tort tax" in 2023, arguing that further litigation risk would harm small employers.
Randy Gross told the committee that the doctrine's removal had led to rising filings and higher insurance premiums, particularly in a state where winter weather produces many slip-and-fall claims. SBAM's Jacob Manning said increased litigation exposure has drawn out-of-state trial firms into Michigan and urged preemptive legislative action.
Opposing testimony came from Mitch Elbers, legal counsel for the Michigan Association for Justice, who argued HB 4582 would reduce safety for visitors, particularly the elderly and disabled, and would further insulate property owners from responsibility. Elbers cited recent Michigan Supreme Court decisions (including opinions referenced in testimony as Elsied v. F & E Oil and Pinsky v. Kroger) and warned the proposal could encourage dangerous conditions by removing incentives for maintenance.
Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill's scope. Representative Harris asked why the bill excludes interior conditions; sponsor Rep Nyar said the measure currently applies only to exterior conditions because environmental variables like weather make outdoor conditions less controllable, and he signaled a willingness to work on internal-premises language separately. Members also debated whether the bill would create an absolute defense for property owners; witnesses said the draft restores a defense for many exterior situations but did not claim it would be an absolute shield in every case.
No formal committee vote on HB 4582 occurred during the hearing. The committee received numerous support cards from business and trade groups and left the bill as a work in progress, with sponsors and opponents both signaling willingness to negotiate language.
The committee moved on to other bills; the record shows HB 4582 will remain under consideration.
