Vance Riddle and Lucinda Riddle v. Mclouth Vance Riddle and Lucinda Riddle v. Mclouth

Vance Riddle and Lucinda Riddle v. Mclouth

1992.MI.1534 , 485 N.W.2D 676, 440 MICH. 85

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

We granted leave to consider a premises owners duty to warn invitees of known or obvious dangers and to determine (1) whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury that, pursuant to SJI2d 19.03, a premises owner must warn an invitee of known or obvious dangers; and (2) whether the jury instruction on violation of a safety regulation pursuant to SJI2d 12.05 constituted error requiring reversal. We conclude that the jury instructions given do not accurately set out the duty of a premises owner. Accordingly, we reverse the decisions of the lower courts and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1992
23 June
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
50
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
86.8
KB

More Books by Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Melvin S. Waltz State v. Melvin S. Waltz
1952
Carol Virginia Gleason v. Ben Geary Carol Virginia Gleason v. Ben Geary
1943
C. M. Dahl and Another v. Henry T C. M. Dahl and Another v. Henry T
1938
Pearl and A. J. Martin v. Josephine Pearl and A. J. Martin v. Josephine
1931
State Ex Rel. Ivan and Mildred Bowen V. State Ex Rel. Ivan and Mildred Bowen V.
1930
Wallace C. Halverson v. Larrivy Plumbing Wallace C. Halverson v. Larrivy Plumbing
1982