Reviews for Premises Liability Lawyers in Michigan | Olsman MacKenzie Peacock
When someone is injured because of an unsafe condition on another person’s property, the law may hold the property owner responsible. These cases fall under the category of premises liability, a branch of personal injury law that covers everything from slip and fall injuries on icy parking lots to falls caused by broken stairways, inadequate lighting, or unsecured hazards in commercial and residential settings.
Olsman MacKenzie Peacock (OMP) has represented injured Michigan residents in premises liability claims for more than five decades. This page brings together real client reviews, an overview of the legal landscape in Michigan following a landmark 2023 court ruling, and notable recoveries the firm has obtained for clients harmed on unsafe property.
All premises liability cases at OMP are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no attorney fees unless a recovery is obtained on the client’s behalf.
What Do Clients Say About Olsman MacKenzie Peacock for Michigan Premises Liability Cases?
The following reviews come from clients who worked with OMP on personal injury and premises liability matters. They reflect direct, firsthand accounts submitted across multiple platforms, including Google, Avvo, and Facebook.
L.R. | Google 5-Star Review
Our attorney Christina Hagen was outstanding! I give her and her staff the highest recommendation”
A. | Avvo 5-Star Review
Jules Olsman is fearless trial attorney. Jules represented my family in a trial in Federal Court. He did an outstanding job and won the case. I would recommend him to anyone. He has integrity and is a skilled attorney who works hard to achieve great results for his clients. He is never intimidated, no matter what situation arises. Jules is a man who you want to be on your side in a dispute. He fights hard to win his cases.
L.L. | Google 5-Star Review
Emily Peacock was wonderful to work with! She was very knowledgeable and professional while working on my case. She put my mind at ease and got the results we hoped for.”
B.W. | Google 5-Star Review
Many thanks to Donna MacKenzie and her assistant, Kate, for doing a such a superb job in working with our case. The entire process was handled with outstanding care, professionalism, and perseverance. We were pleased with the outcome and would highly recommend Donna and her staff.
B.F. | Google 5-Star Review
I highly recommend Emily Peacock, Lynnae, and Michelle, an exceptional team of dedicated professionals who work seamlessly together. Each of them brings skill, compassion, and clear communication to every interaction. Emily’s legal skill and expertise, paired with Lynnae’s and Michelle’s organization, responsiveness, and warmth, create a collaborative and supportive experience that stands out. They treat every person with respect, empathy, and genuine care. If you’re looking for a legal team that works in true partnership, listens carefully, and shows up with both expertise and heart, Emily, Lynnae, and Michelle are second to none.”
TESTIMONIAL VIDEO
Hurt in a Fall or on Unsafe Property? Call OMP at 1-800-366-8653 Today
Did the 2023 Kandil-Elsayed Ruling Change Whether an Injured Person Can Sue a Property Owner in Michigan?
Yes. The 2023 Michigan Supreme Court decision in Kandil-Elsayed v. F&E Oil, Inc. and Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan fundamentally changed who can bring a premises liability claim in Michigan and under what circumstances.
For more than 20 years, Michigan property owners relied on what courts called the open and obvious doctrine, a legal defense established in the 2001 case Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. Under that doctrine, if a hazard on someone’s property was visible or apparent, courts treated it as a complete bar to recovery. Cases involving ice, uneven pavement, a cable strung across a walkway, or even a poorly lit area could be dismissed entirely at the motion stage if a judge found the hazard to be open and obvious.
The Kandil-Elsayed decision overturned Lugo entirely. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the open and obvious nature of a hazard is no longer a basis for dismissing a claim before it reaches a jury. Instead, it is now a factor the jury may weigh when determining comparative fault. Property owners still owe visitors a duty to exercise reasonable care. Whether they breached that duty is a question of fact for the jury, not a legal threshold the court resolves at the summary disposition stage.
The ruling was also applied retroactively. A subsequent Court of Appeals decision, Gabrielson v. The Woods Condominium Association, Inc., confirmed that Kandil-Elsayed applies to cases that were already pending on appeal at the time of the ruling. This meant that claims previously dismissed under the open and obvious doctrine could be revived.
We have written about this ruling and its ongoing implications for Michigan premises liability cases in our blog, Michigan Personal Injury Blog, analyzing what the Michigan Court of Appeals has done with the Kandil-Elsayed framework in subsequent cases.
For anyone who was injured on unsafe property and was previously told their case had no merit because the hazard was visible, the legal landscape has changed. A premises liability attorney can evaluate whether those circumstances give rise to a claim under the current standard.
Speak with a Premises Liability Attorney at OMP | Call 1-800-366-8653
What Types of Dangerous Property Conditions Lead to Premises Liability Claims in Michigan?
Premises liability claims in Michigan arise from unsafe conditions on property that the owner or occupier knew about or should have known about and failed to address. Common fact patterns that give rise to these cases include the following:
- Slip and fall on ice or wet floors. Property owners, including commercial establishments, landlords, and parking lot operators, have a duty to address snow and ice accumulation within a reasonable time. Failure to salt or clear a parking lot, walkway, or building entrance can result in serious fractures, spinal injuries, and traumatic brain injuries.
- Trip and fall on defective surfaces. Uneven pavement, cracked sidewalks, broken stairs, loose carpeting, and raised flooring edges are common causes of falls in both commercial and residential settings. An injury caused by a property defect that the owner was aware of or should have discovered through reasonable inspection may give rise to a claim.
- Falls caused by inadequate lighting. Poor lighting in stairwells, parking garages, hallways, and common areas can obscure hazards that a person would otherwise notice and avoid. When inadequate lighting contributes to a fall, the property owner may be liable.
- Falling objects in retail stores. Merchandise stored on overhead shelving can fall when shelves are overloaded, improperly secured, or when items are disturbed by staff. Injuries from falling objects in stores can be severe, particularly when the item falls from significant height.
- Inadequate security leading to assault. Property owners operating parking lots, apartment complexes, and other commercial spaces may be liable when a failure to maintain reasonable security measures allows an assault, robbery, or other criminal act to occur on the premises.
- Swimming pool and drowning incidents. Michigan law and local ordinances impose fencing and barrier requirements for private and commercial swimming pools. A drowning or near-drowning that occurs on property that does not meet those safety requirements may give rise to a premises liability claim.
- Environmental and toxic exposure in rental housing. Mold, mildew, lead paint, and other environmental hazards in poorly maintained rental properties can cause serious and lasting harm, particularly for children and those with compromised respiratory health.
Each of these situations involves a distinct set of facts, evidence requirements, and potential defendants. The strength of a claim depends in part on how quickly evidence is gathered, which makes early legal consultation important in all premises liability matters.
What Has Olsman MacKenzie Peacock Recovered for Clients Injured on Unsafe Property in Michigan?
The following result represents a recovery OMP obtained for a client injured in a hazardous property situation.
$2,550,000 – Award for a 55-year-old woman who was struck by a snow plow in a gas station parking lot, resulting in severe reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), a permanently disabling pain condition.
$1,100,000 – Settlement for serious injuries sustained when a tractor-trailer driver struck a line of stopped vehicles in a construction zone. The accident occurred as a result of unsafe conditions at a highway construction site, illustrating how premises and worksite hazard liability can arise outside of traditional slip-and-fall settings.
$182,500 – Settlement for a 53-year-old woman who sustained a severe ankle fracture in the parking lot of a commercial building after a snow plow contractor failed to salt the lot following an early-season snowfall.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. The result listed above was obtained on behalf of that specific client and is not representative of what any other client may recover.
How Does Michigan Comparative Fault Law Affect a Premises Liability Claim?
Michigan uses a modified comparative fault system for personal injury cases, including premises liability. Under this framework, a defendant’s liability is reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the injured person. If a court or jury finds that the injured person was more than 50 percent at fault, the person recovers nothing from the defendant.
The ruling reshaped how this analysis works in premises cases. Under the old open and obvious doctrine, if a court found that a hazard was visible, it could dismiss the case outright before a jury ever heard it, effectively treating the plaintiff’s awareness of a hazard as a complete bar to recovery. After Kandil-Elsayed, the open and obvious nature of a condition is no longer a basis for dismissal. Instead, it is now a factor the jury weighs as part of the comparative fault analysis.
What this means practically is that a case involving a wet floor with a warning sign, an icy sidewalk the plaintiff saw before stepping onto it, or a cable strung across a checkout lane may no longer be dismissed before trial. The jury decides how to allocate fault between the injured person and the property owner, considering all the circumstances including what each party knew and what each could reasonably have done differently.
A slip and fall attorney handling premises cases in Michigan today must be prepared to argue comparative fault before a jury. The ability to frame the property owner’s knowledge of the hazard, the length of time the condition had existed, and the owner’s failure to act are all central to reducing the fault attributed to the injured party and maximizing the recovery.
What Steps Should a Person Take After Being Injured on Someone Else’s Property in Michigan?
The period immediately following a premises injury is critical from an evidence standpoint. Certain types of evidence disappear quickly. Surveillance footage is frequently overwritten within 24 to 72 hours. Witnesses move on. Maintenance logs and incident reports may be altered, lost, or selectively preserved once a property owner anticipates litigation.
The following steps are generally recommended for individuals who have been injured on another person’s property in Michigan.
- Report the incident. Notify the property owner, store manager, or landlord at the time of the injury. Ask for and retain a copy of any incident report that is generated. If one is not offered, document in writing that a report was made and to whom.
- Photograph the hazard. Before the condition is repaired, photograph the specific area where the injury occurred, including the hazard itself, any signage or its absence, lighting conditions, and surrounding area. Photographs taken at the scene are among the most valuable evidence in premises cases.
- Obtain witness information. Gather the names and contact details of anyone who witnessed the fall or who was present before it occurred and may have observed the condition.
- Seek medical attention. Some injuries, including fractures, spinal injuries, and traumatic brain injuries, may not produce their full symptoms immediately. Obtaining a medical evaluation promptly establishes a contemporaneous record of the injury and its connection to the incident.
- Preserve evidence of the ongoing harm. Medical records, bills, wage loss documentation, and personal notes about how the injury has affected daily life are all forms of evidence that can support the damages portion of a premises liability claim.
- Contact a premises liability attorney before the statute of limitations expires. In Michigan, premises liability claims are generally subject to a three-year statute of limitations under MCL 600.5805. Special rules may apply for claims against government entities, which often require shorter notice periods. Consulting a slip and fall attorney early preserves the right to file and allows investigation to begin while evidence is still available.
We offer a free initial consultations at no obligation. As premises liability attorneys with decades of experience, we can evaluate the specific circumstances of an injury, explain the applicable legal standards, and advise on whether a premises liability claim is worth pursuing.
Why Do Michigan Residents Call Olsman MacKenzie Peacock After a Premises Liability Injury?
Our dedicated premises liability lawyers represent clients statewide from offices in Berkley, Lapeer, and Battle Creek. All premises liability cases are accepted on a contingency fee basis.
Approximately 90 percent of OMP’s clients come to the firm through referrals from other attorneys, a consistent and meaningful indicator that the legal community regards OMP as the firm to send a case to when results matter.
We bring specific depth to premises liability cases that matters in the current legal environment. Following the Kandil-Elsayed ruling, the defense strategy for property owners has shifted. Insurers and defense counsel now rely more heavily on comparative fault arguments, notice defenses, and claims that the property owner acted reasonably despite the hazard. Responding effectively to those arguments requires litigation preparation, not just negotiation.
Premises Liability Practice Page: Michigan Premises Liability Law Explained
Slip and Fall Practice Page: Michigan Slip and Fall Accident Lawyers
Berkley Office: 2684 West Eleven Mile, Berkley, Michigan 48072 | 248-591-2300
Lapeer Office: 350 North Court Street, Suite 209, Lapeer, Michigan 48446 | 810-667-9500
Battle Creek: 269-963-0375
The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting OMP or submitting a contact form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes.