Campbell v. Kovich
731 N.W.2d 112 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person mowing a lawn must exercise ordinary care, which includes a brief inspection for debris but does not require extraordinary precautions. A property owner is generally not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor hired to perform such work, as lawn mowing is not an inherently dangerous activity and no duty is owed to warn a licensee of the open and obvious danger posed by a running mower.
Facts:
- Steven and Julie Kovich hired Ashton Minish to mow their lawn.
- Before starting, Ashton Minish inspected the lawn for a couple of minutes.
- While Minish was operating the push lawn mower, Karie Campbell was walking on the public sidewalk adjacent to the Koviches' property.
- Campbell observed that Minish was not doing anything unusual, was not in a hurry, and appeared to be watching where he was walking.
- While walking, Campbell was struck in the eye by an unknown, unrecovered object.
- Campbell admitted in a deposition that she was aware prior to the incident that lawn mowers can run over and eject objects.
Procedural Posture:
- Karie and David Campbell sued Ashton Minish and Steven and Julie Kovich in a Michigan trial court.
- The defendants filed motions for summary disposition, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of all defendants, dismissing the Campbells' lawsuit.
- The Campbells, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the lawn mower operator and the homeowners breach their respective duties of care owed to a pedestrian on an adjacent sidewalk who was injured by an object allegedly ejected from the lawn mower?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Neither the operator nor the homeowners breached a duty of care. A person mowing a lawn is held to a standard of ordinary care, not extraordinary care. Ashton Minish met this standard by conducting a brief inspection of the lawn and operating the mower in a normal, prudent manner. The Koviches, as property owners, are not liable for Minish's actions because he was an independent contractor, determined by the fact that the Koviches did not control the method of his work. Lawn mowing is not an inherently dangerous activity, which would create an exception to the general rule of non-liability for independent contractors. Furthermore, under premises liability, Campbell was a licensee, and the Koviches' only duty was to warn of known, hidden dangers. A running lawn mower is an open and obvious danger, not a hidden one, and Campbell admitted she was aware of the risk, thus negating any duty to warn.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard of care for the common activity of lawn mowing in Michigan, establishing that ordinary, reasonable precautions are sufficient and rejecting a stricter standard. It reinforces the 'control test' as the determinative factor for distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor, thereby limiting vicarious liability for homeowners. The case also affirms that the 'inherently dangerous activity' exception is narrow and that a property owner's duty to a licensee does not extend to warning about open and obvious conditions, solidifying landowners' protections in premises liability claims.
Unlock the full brief for Campbell v. Kovich