Background
Hossam Alaquie delivered caustic soda to EES Coke Battery’s facility. The soda could enter EES’s storage tank only if an internal valve, which only an EES employee could open, was open. Alaquie testified that an EES employee twice assured him the valve was open, although the employee disputed making those statements. The valve was never opened.
After the soda failed to offload, Alaquie believed his equipment was malfunctioning and disconnected a pressurized hose so that he could have the equipment inspected. Because the hose remained under pressure and he was not wearing proper protective equipment, caustic soda sprayed into his face and eyes. He sued EES, alleging that a defective 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.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. Looking beyond the labels in the complaint to the gravamen of the allegations, 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 special 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 created a duty. It did not decide whether a dangerous condition existed, whether EES breached its invitee duty, or whether any breach proximately caused Alaquie’s injuries.
Key Takeaways
- A business visitor is an invitee to whom a premises possessor owes the applicable common-law duty of reasonable care.
- The existence of that duty arises from the possessor-invitee relationship and does not turn on whether the plaintiff has already established a dangerous condition.
- The court reversed summary disposition and remanded, leaving breach, the existence of a dangerous condition, and proximate causation unresolved.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the legal existence of a premises possessor’s duty from the factual questions governing liability. A court may not conclude that no invitee duty exists merely because the defendant disputes that its property contained a dangerous or defective condition.
The ruling also illustrates that Michigan courts determine a claim’s nature from its substance rather than its caption. Alaquie’s allegations that a condition on EES’s property caused his injury were sufficient to place premises liability at issue, particularly because he expressly raised that theory in opposing summary disposition and at the hearing.