Michigan Snow and Ice Slip and Fall Claims

Yes, you can sue for a slip and fall on snow or ice in Michigan — and these claims became meaningfully harder to dismiss in July 2023. That is when the Michigan Supreme Court decided Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, retiring the old rule that an “open and obvious” hazard erased a property owner’s duty of care. Winter falls are still not easy cases: owners keep real defenses, and how obvious the ice was now shapes how a jury divides fault. But the door that used to close many of these claims before a jury ever heard them has been reopened. Understanding what changed — and what you still have to prove — is the key to knowing whether you have a viable case.

Can You Sue for a Slip and Fall on Ice in Michigan?

Michigan premises liability law holds property owners responsible for maintaining their property in a reasonably safe condition. When someone slips and falls due to a dangerous condition — including ice or packed snow — the property owner may be liable for the resulting injuries.

For years, Michigan courts treated the presence of snow and ice in winter as a natural, “open and obvious” condition and used that label to say a property owner owed no duty at all — the visitor was simply expected to see the danger and take steps to avoid it. After the 2023 Kandil-Elsayed decision, that is no longer the law. A property owner still owes visitors a duty of reasonable care in winter; obviousness is now weighed later, as part of breach and your own comparative fault, rather than wiping out the duty at the start.

That shift matters because it changed where these cases are fought. The question is no longer whether the ice was obvious enough to end the claim on paper — it is whether the owner acted reasonably and how much responsibility each side bears, which are usually questions for a jury.

Property Owner Responsibilities

Under Michigan premises liability law, property owners owe different duties depending on the status of the person on their property:

• Invitees (customers, tenants, business visitors) are owed the highest duty of care. The property owner must inspect the premises, identify hazards, and either fix them or provide adequate warning.
• Licensees (social guests) are owed a lesser duty. The property owner must warn of known dangers that the guest is unlikely to discover on their own.
• Trespassers are generally owed the least duty, though property owners cannot set intentional traps.

For most winter slip and fall claims, the injured person is an invitee — a customer at a store, a tenant at an apartment complex, or a visitor at a business. Property owners with invitees have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to address hazardous conditions, including ice and snow accumulation in high-traffic areas like parking lots, sidewalks, and building entrances.

The Open and Obvious Doctrine — and How It Changed in 2023

For most of the last two decades, the open and obvious doctrine was the biggest obstacle in Michigan winter slip and fall cases. Under the old framework — anchored by the Lugo “special aspects” rule — a property owner owed no duty for a condition that was “open and obvious,” meaning the average person exercising reasonable care would have noticed the hazard and avoided it. Courts applied that reasoning to snow and ice constantly: in a Michigan winter, everyone knows ice is around, so an obvious icy patch often ended the case before it reached a jury.

That changed on July 28, 2023. In Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, decided together with Pinsky v Kroger Co of Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled that special-aspects framework. Open-and-obviousness no longer eliminates a property owner’s duty. Instead, whether a hazard was open and obvious is now considered as part of two later questions — did the owner breach the duty of reasonable care, and how should fault be divided between the owner and the injured person? Those are normally questions for a jury, not a reason to dismiss the case at the start.

This does not turn property owners into automatic insurers of everyone who walks onto their land. It moves the obviousness of the ice from a doctrine that defeated claims outright to a factor a jury weighs.

What You Still Have to Prove

The 2023 change reopened the courthouse door, but it did not hand winter slip and fall plaintiffs an automatic win. Even after Kandil-Elsayed, the injured person still has to prove the core elements of a premises case:

• A dangerous condition. The ice or snow created an unreasonable risk of harm, not just an ordinary winter surface.
• Notice. The property owner knew, or through reasonable care should have known, that the dangerous condition was there.
• Unreasonable conduct. The owner failed to do what a reasonable property owner would have done about it — inspecting, treating, or warning of the hazard.

How Comparative Fault Reduces Recovery

Because obviousness now runs through comparative fault, Michigan’s modified comparative negligence rule (MCL 600.2959) does much of the work these cases used to resolve at the doctrine stage. If you share some responsibility for the fall — for example, by not watching where you were walking — your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault. And if you are found more than 50% at fault, you are barred from recovering non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. That is why how the fall happened, and how obvious the ice really was, now shape the value of the case rather than ending it.

Evidence to Preserve After a Winter Fall

Winter slip and fall cases are heavily dependent on evidence, and that evidence can disappear quickly — literally melting away. If you have been injured in a fall on snow or ice, take the following steps to preserve your claim:

• Photograph the scene immediately. Take pictures of the exact spot where you fell, the ice or snow accumulation, the surrounding area, and any footwear you were wearing. Capture images from multiple angles.
• Note the date, time, and weather conditions. Record when the fall occurred, the temperature, whether it was snowing or had recently snowed, and any other relevant weather details.
• Identify witnesses. If anyone saw you fall, get their contact information. Witness testimony can corroborate your account of the conditions.
• Report the fall to the property owner or manager. File an incident report at the location. Ask for a copy and note the name of the person you spoke with.
• Seek medical attention. Visit a doctor or emergency room as soon as possible. Medical records that document your injuries immediately after the fall are critical evidence.
• Keep the shoes you were wearing. Defense attorneys often argue that the injured person was wearing inappropriate footwear. Preserving your shoes allows your attorney to address this argument head-on.
• Check for surveillance cameras. Many businesses and parking lots have security cameras. Footage of your fall is powerful evidence, but it is often overwritten quickly. Your attorney can send a preservation letter to ensure the footage is saved.

Filing Deadlines

The statute of limitations for a premises liability claim in Michigan is three years from the date of the injury under MCL 600.5805. If the property is owned by a government entity — such as a city sidewalk or a public building — you must file a notice of intent within six months.

Winter slip and fall cases often require prompt action because the physical evidence changes with the weather. If you were injured in a fall on snow or ice in Michigan, contact a Michigan slip and fall lawyer as soon as possible. Baldori Law offers free consultations and can help you understand whether you have a viable claim.