Background
Hossam Alaquie delivered caustic soda to EES Coke Battery’s facility. Offloading required an internal valve on EES’s storage tank to be opened by an EES employee. Alaquie testified that an employee twice assured him the valve was open, although the employee disputed that account. The valve was never opened, and the caustic soda did not flow into the tank.
Believing his equipment was malfunctioning, Alaquie disconnected a pressurized hose without proper protective equipment. Caustic soda sprayed onto his face and into his eyes. He sued EES, alleging that a defective valve caused his injuries. The circuit court granted EES summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), ruling solely that EES owed him no duty, while indicating that factual questions remained concerning proximate cause.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. Reading the complaint according to its gravamen rather than its labels, the court concluded that Alaquie asserted and preserved a premises-liability claim. Because he entered EES’s property with permission for a business purpose, he was an invitee. EES therefore owed him the common-law duty to exercise reasonable care to protect him from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land.
That duty arose from the relationship between EES as premises possessor and Alaquie as invitee; its existence did not depend on first proving that the premises actually contained a dangerous or defective condition. The court rejected Alaquie’s alternative theories that EES had a freestanding duty to ensure he unloaded the shipment safely or that EES’s internal operating procedures independently created a duty. It did not decide whether EES breached its invitee duty or whether any breach proximately caused the injuries, leaving those issues for further proceedings on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A business visitor is an invitee, and the premises possessor owes that visitor a common-law duty of reasonable care concerning unreasonable risks from dangerous conditions on the land.
- The existence of an invitee duty arises from the parties’ relationship and does not turn on whether the plaintiff ultimately proves that a dangerous or defective condition existed.
- A contractor’s employer generally remains responsible for workplace safety, and a property owner’s internal procedures do not, by themselves, establish a legal duty to others.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the existence of a premises possessor’s duty from the remaining elements of a premises-liability claim. A court may not eliminate the invitee duty merely because the defendant disputes that the property was dangerous or attributes the accident to the visitor’s own conduct.
On remand, Alaquie must still establish breach and causation. The opinion therefore restores his claim without deciding whether the closed valve, the alleged assurances of EES’s employee, or Alaquie’s handling of the pressurized hose ultimately creates liability.