Another victim's premises liability claim bites the dust
In Kassed v. Atikan, the Plaintiff sued the defendant after falling on the Defendant's porch. The trial judge had ruled that Plaintiff was an "invitee" because he entered the defendant's property to perform a service (to inform him that a car was parked in the street blocking his driveway). The Court of Appeals reversed this holding; it ruled that there was no pecuniary purpose for the plaintiff entering the property and therefore he was either a trespasser or merely "tolerated."
The higher court ruled that regardless of the plaintiff's status on the property, the homeowner owed no duty to address a slippery porch, since with snow on the ground the slippery wintry condition of the porch was an "open and obvious hazard." It also held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to refuse to consider a response brief filed eight days late by the Plaintiff.