Michigan House Passes Bill Restoring Commonsense Premises Liability Standard After Supreme Court Ruling

House Bill 4582 Would Reinstate Open and Obvious Doctrine for Property Owners

Michigan State Rep. Jerry Neyer announced House passage of legislation restoring balance to Michigan's premises liability laws following a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the traditional open and obvious framework.

House Bill 4582 passed the House with bipartisan support on March 11, 2026, after the House Judiciary Committee approved it with amendments expanding coverage from property exteriors to include interior premises as well.

The bill would establish a new Premises Liability Act codifying the long-standing open and obvious doctrine that protected property owners from liability for hazards that are clearly visible.

What the Bill Does

HB 4582 clarifies 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 prevents individuals injured while committing crimes such as breaking and entering from suing property owners.

Why This Matters for West Michigan

Small businesses and property owners across West Michigan have been burdened by increased legal uncertainty and rising insurance costs since the Supreme Court eliminated the open and obvious doctrine in 2023.

"Most people understand a simple rule: if a danger is obvious, you should avoid it," said Rep. Neyer (R-Shepherd). "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 Michigan Chamber of Commerce testified in support of the legislation, noting that without the open and obvious protection, employers face increased liability exposure and legal uncertainty that ultimately impacts consumers.

Rep. Neyer said the court's changes have increased legal uncertainty, pushing more cases into lengthy litigation and making it harder for judges to dismiss meritless claims early in the process.

"Some small businesses cannot afford prolonged legal battles and feel pressured to settle even when they may not be at fault," Neyer said. "Those rising costs don't stay in the courtroom. They get passed on to workers, consumers, and families."

The bill now advances to the Michigan Senate for consideration.

The Supreme Court Ruling That Changed Everything

In 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Kandil-Elsayed v. F and E Oil, Inc. and Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan rulings, shifted the open and obvious doctrine from a complete legal defense to only one factor considered in liability cases.

This change made Michigan one of only nine states without the traditional open and obvious protection, creating legal uncertainty for businesses and property owners statewide.

The NFIB National Federation of Independent Business testified in favor of the bill and was instrumental in shepherding the legislation through the House.

NFIB Michigan State Director Amanda Fisher praised the Michigan House for passing House Bill 4582, which would restore liability protection for property owners if a danger was open and obvious.

What Property Owners Can Expect

Under the new standard, property owners would not have a duty to protect against hazards that are open and obvious. Examples include:

• Large potholes in parking lots
• Clearly visible wet floors with warning signs
• Snow and ice
• Cracked sidewalks

However, claims can proceed when dangerous conditions are effectively unavoidable or pose an unusually high risk of severe harm.

The Michigan Chamber noted that the legislation responds to the 2023 Supreme Court rulings that eliminated the traditional open and obvious framework that had been in place for decades.

"The Michigan Chamber testified in support of the legislation last summer and continues to advocate for restoring this important safeguard," said the Chamber. "Without it, employers face increased liability exposure and legal uncertainty, higher costs that ultimately impact consumers, and added strain on Michigan's already burdened court system."

The bill now heads to the full House for consideration before advancing to the Senate.