Experience, expertise and common sense.
Imminence is Key: Hotel Receptionist Had No Duty to Protect Plaintiff from Potential Future Criminal Activity
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently examined longstanding case law pertaining to duties owed by premises owners for criminal activity on the premises. Relying on MacDonald v PKT, Inc, 464 Mich 322, 334 (2001), the Court in Emanuel v Days Inn of Port Huron, et al, Docket No. 339491 held that a hotel receptionist had no duty to protect Plaintiff from potential future criminal activity. In order for a duty to arise, there must be an imminent threat of harm. In addition, the Court underscored the importance of properly using affidavits to clarify, not contradict, prior deposition testimony.
To access the full article: http://bit.ly/2Ryr4KB