House Bill 4582 Would Reinstate Common-Sense Legal Standard Eliminated by 2023 Supreme Court Ruling

LANSING — The Michigan House of Representatives passed House Bill 4582 on March 11, 2026, restoring the long-standing "open and obvious" doctrine in premises liability cases that the Michigan Supreme Court eliminated in a controversial 2023 ruling.

The legislation, sponsored by State Representative Jerry Neyer (R-Shepherd), would establish a new Premises Liability Act codifying the principle that property owners generally do not have a duty to protect against hazards that are clearly visible and would be apparent to a reasonable person.

The Legal Shift That Created Uncertainty

In July 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court issued groundbreaking rulings in Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc. and Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan that transformed how premises liability cases are handled in the state. The court held that whether a dangerous condition is "open and obvious" should be considered just one factor among many in determining liability, rather than serving as a complete legal defense.

"Most people understand a simple rule: if a danger is obvious, you should avoid it," Neyer said. "For decades, Michigan law recognized that same common-sense principle. Recent court decisions took that clarity away, creating uncertainty that is driving up lawsuits and insurance costs for businesses and property owners across our state."

The ruling effectively eliminated the "open and obvious" doctrine as a threshold issue in premises liability cases. Under the previous standard, if an average person of ordinary intelligence could reasonably be expected to discover and avoid a dangerous condition—such as a large pothole in a parking lot, a clearly visible wet floor with warning signs, snow and ice, or a cracked sidewalk—the property owner was typically not liable for injuries stemming from that condition.

Business Impact and Rising Costs

NFIB Michigan State Director Amanda Fisher testified before the House Judiciary Committee in favor of the bill, explaining the real-world impact of the Supreme Court's decision.

"For decades, this rule served as a clear, objective standard that allowed courts to dismiss meritless claims early in litigation," Fisher said. "Without it, judges and juries must now engage in complex factual inquiries about whether an 'open and obvious' hazard nonetheless posed an 'unreasonable risk of harm.' This subjective standard increases litigation costs and clogs judicial resources with cases that previously would have been resolved swiftly."

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce echoed these concerns, noting that Michigan is now one of only nine states without the "open and obvious" protection, making it a national outlier. The chamber testified that without this safeguard, employers face:

  • Increased liability exposure and legal uncertainty
  • Higher costs that ultimately impact consumers
  • Added strain on Michigan's already burdened court system

According to NFIB testimony, small business owners who employ less than 50 employees pay an average of $14,700 per employee to comply with federal regulations. Every state regulation adds to that cost, which can be a deterrent to both starting or growing a small business.

What the Bill Would Do

House Bill 4582 would restore the previous standard by clarifying that property owners generally do not have a duty to protect against hazards that are open and obvious, while still allowing claims to proceed when dangerous conditions are effectively unavoidable or pose an unusually high risk of severe harm.

The legislation also includes provisions that prevent individuals injured while committing crimes—such as breaking and entering—from suing the property owners they were victimizing.

"This legislation protects workers, entrepreneurs, and local businesses while ensuring legitimate victims can still pursue justice," Neyer said. "It's about fairness, predictability, and bringing some common sense back to our legal system."

The bill is estimated to have significant financial impact, with some businesses reporting that liability insurance premiums have tripled as they face higher legal risks and settlement costs. Representative Neyer noted that many small businesses simply cannot afford prolonged legal battles and feel pressured to settle even when they may not be at fault.

Next Steps

Following its passage in the House with bipartisan support, House Bill 4582 will be sent to the Michigan Senate for consideration. The bill was introduced as a partial restoration applying only to property exteriors, but an amendment passed by the House Judiciary Committee expanded coverage to include interior premises as well.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform—a coalition of more than 40 Michigan stakeholders—have both endorsed the legislation as a practical reform needed to restore balance and fairness in Michigan's legal climate.

NFIB has indicated it will continue pushing for the critical cost-saving legislation, even if the Senate does not take action.

Broader Context

This legislative action comes amid ongoing debates about the impact of recent Michigan Supreme Court decisions on small businesses. In addition to the premises liability rulings, the court has issued decisions affecting other areas of business regulation, including worker classification and employment practices.

The passage of House Bill 4582 reflects a bipartisan effort to address what many business groups describe as excessive litigation costs and legal uncertainty that have made Michigan an outlier among states in terms of liability standards.

As the bill moves to the Senate, stakeholders on both sides of the debate will be watching closely to see if the restoration of this common-sense legal principle can gain the support needed to become law.