Inform, Entertain, Inspire
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Business groups want bills to protect property owners from slip-and-fall lawsuits

A gavel rests on the judge’s bench in the courtroom of the 39th Air Base Wing legal office at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, Nov. 14, 2019.
Air Force Staff Sgt. Joshua Joseph Magbanua
/
A gavel rests on the judge’s bench in the courtroom of the 39th Air Base Wing legal office at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, Nov. 14, 2019.

A new coalition of business groups is coming together around Michigan bills that would change how courts handle slip-and-fall lawsuits.

The package of legislation would protect property owners from suits over injuries that occur due to an “open and obvious” danger.

State Representative Mike Harris (R-Waterford) said the bills would prevent abuse of the legal system.

“These are common sense guardrails. They’re not barriers to justice. They don’t prevent anyone from bringing a case or seeking fair representation. What they do is restore fairness and transparency to a system that’s become way too easy to exploit,” Harris said.

He sponsors a bill in the package that would also require third parties that pay for lawsuits to register with the state. It would also bar them from influencing litigation strategy.

Tiger Joyce is president of the American Tort Reform Association. He said only the parties directly involved should have a say in lawsuits.

“Litigation doesn’t exist to benefit an investor. It exists to resolve matters that come before the courts,” Joyce said.

Michigan did protect property owners from lawsuits under an “open and obvious” doctrine before the state Supreme Court overturned it in 2023.

Groups opposed to the bills argue they would shield businesses from accountability.

Mitch Albers is with the Michigan Association for Justice, which represents trial attorneys.

“The judicially created 'open and obvious' doctrine has been disastrous policy for Michiganders for far too long. It has encouraged dangerous physical conditions, creates extra costs for the public, and is especially discriminatory towards the elderly, handicapped and other vulnerable citizens,” Albers told the House Judiciary Committee at an August meeting on one of the package’s bills.