Background
Hossam Alaquie delivered caustic soda to EES Coke Battery’s facility. EES’s storage tank had an internal valve that only an EES employee could open. According to Alaquie, an EES employee twice assured him that the valve was open, although the employee disputed making those statements. The valve remained closed, preventing the caustic soda from leaving Alaquie’s pressurized tanker and hose.
Believing his equipment was malfunctioning, Alaquie disconnected the still-pressurized hose without proper protective equipment. Caustic soda sprayed onto his face and into his eyes. He sued EES, alleging that a defective condition involving the valve caused his injuries. The Wayne Circuit Court granted EES summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), ruling solely that EES owed him no duty, while observing that factual questions might remain concerning proximate cause.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. Looking beyond the labels in the complaint to the claim’s gravamen, the court concluded that Alaquie had 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 property actually contained a dangerous or defective condition. The court rejected Alaquie’s alternative theories that EES had a freestanding duty to ensure he safely performed the contracted work or that EES’s internal procedures independently established a duty. It did not decide whether EES breached its invitee duty or whether any breach proximately caused the injuries, leaving those questions for proceedings on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A business visitor is an invitee to whom a premises possessor owes a common-law duty of reasonable care regarding unreasonable risks from dangerous conditions on the land.
- The existence of that duty flows from the possessor-invitee relationship and is distinct from whether a dangerous condition, breach, or causation can ultimately be proved.
- Internal company rules do not independently define a defendant’s legal duty, and a property owner ordinarily has no freestanding duty to supervise an independent contractor’s employee or ensure that employee performs the work safely.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the need to analyze duty separately from the remaining elements of premises liability. A court may not conclude that a premises possessor owes an invitee no duty merely because the defendant disputes that a dangerous condition existed or argues that the invitee’s own conduct produced the injury.
The ruling revives Alaquie’s case but does not establish liability. On remand, he still must prove matters including a dangerous condition within the scope of EES’s premises-liability duty, breach, and causation.