Michigan Slip and Fall Accident Funding

Three years from the date of the fall for a negligence/premises-liability claim (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2)). Michigan applies the general personal-injury limitations period rather than a distinct premises-liability statute.

Michigan applies a hybrid comparative-fault system: pure comparative negligence for economic damages, but modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar for non-economic damages (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959). Michigan's open-and-obvious danger doctrine can eliminate a possessor's duty to warn as a matter of law where the danger is open and obvious, unless the condition has "special aspects" that make it unreasonably dangerous despite its obviousness — for example, an unavoidable hazard or one posing a uniquely high risk of severe harm (Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001)). As in Ohio, this can operate as a complete, dispositive bar rather than merely a comparative-fault factor, making the "special aspects" analysis central to Michigan slip-and-fall litigation.

No statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability slip-and-fall case (Michigan's damages caps under the Tort Reform Act apply to medical-malpractice actions, not general premises claims).

Pre-judgment interest generally accrues on a judgment from the date the complaint was filed, at statutory rates set under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013.

Proper in the county where the defendant resides or conducts business, or where the claim arose (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629).

Michigan has no dedicated consumer litigation funding statute. No statutory cap.

What are "special aspects" and why do they matter so much in Michigan?

Michigan's open-and-obvious doctrine can bar a claim entirely unless the hazard has special aspects, such as being effectively unavoidable or carrying an unusually severe risk of harm, that make it unreasonably dangerous despite being plainly visible to a reasonable person.

Lugo v. Ameritech narrowed this exception considerably, so a hazard being merely severe or visible is not enough on its own. The plaintiff generally must show the danger was either unavoidable given the property's layout or posed a uniquely high risk, such as a substantial drop-off disguised as an ordinary walkway.

How does Michigan's hybrid comparative-fault system affect a claim's value?

Economic damages, meaning medical bills and lost wages, are reduced under pure comparative fault and never barred outright, while non-economic damages such as pain and suffering are subject to a 51% bar that can eliminate that entire portion of the recovery.

This split means a Michigan claim can retain meaningful economic-damages value even where fault allocation would otherwise threaten the entire non-economic recovery. That is a meaningfully different risk profile than a single-track comparative-fault state uses for the same underlying facts.

Does the property type affect the special-aspects analysis?

Commercial premises with predictable, repeated traffic patterns, such as a single entrance built directly over an icy step, are more likely to support an "effectively unavoidable" argument than a residential property where alternative routes are readily available to a visitor.

This makes the specific layout and available alternatives at the property, not just the hazard itself, a key part of building a Michigan slip-and-fall claim. That evidence is often what determines whether a claim survives the open-and-obvious defense at summary judgment.