Dykema v. Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc.
492 N.W.2d 472 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An organizer of a free, outdoor public event does not have a special relationship with a spectator that would create a legal duty to warn of an obvious, approaching thunderstorm.
Facts:
- In July 1988, Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc. organized and conducted an outdoor basketball tournament on the public streets of Belding, Michigan.
- The tournament was free for spectators, who were able to move about freely.
- Lee Dykema attended the event as a nonpaying spectator on July 10, 1988.
- At approximately 4:30 p.m., a severe thunderstorm with high winds struck the area.
- While running for shelter, a falling tree limb struck Dykema, causing him to become paralyzed.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee and Linda Dykema sued Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc. and its sponsors in a Michigan trial court for negligence.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing they owed no duty to the plaintiff.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition.
- The Dykemas, 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:
Does an organizer of a free, outdoor sporting event have a legal duty to warn a nonpaying spectator of an approaching thunderstorm?
Opinions:
Majority - Michael J. Kelly, J.
No. An organizer of a free, outdoor event does not have a legal duty to warn a spectator of an approaching thunderstorm. The general rule is that there is no duty to protect another unless a 'special relationship' exists. Such a relationship arises when one person entrusts themselves to the control and protection of another, with a consequent loss of their own ability to self-protect. Here, no special relationship existed between Dykema and the tournament organizer. Dykema was not a business invitee as he paid no admission fee, and he did not entrust his safety to the defendant; he was free to move about, observe the weather, and seek shelter on his own. Furthermore, even if a special relationship had existed, the danger posed by an approaching thunderstorm is open and obvious to a reasonably prudent person, negating any duty to warn. An individual has a responsibility to protect themselves from such apparent natural conditions.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'special relationship' doctrine in Michigan, particularly as it applies to organizers of open, public events. The court establishes that the mere hosting of an event does not create the necessary element of control over spectators required to impose a duty to protect them from natural, obvious dangers. This ruling limits the expansion of premises liability, placing the onus on individuals to be aware of and react to foreseeable weather hazards in settings where they retain control over their own movements and safety. It provides a strong precedent for defendants in similar cases involving injuries from natural phenomena at free, public gatherings.
Unlock the full brief for Dykema v. Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc.