## Facts

- Karie Campbell was at Steven and Julie Kovich’s home helping with a garage sale.
- Ashton Minish was mowing the Koviches’ lawn with a power mower when Campbell was struck in the eye by an unknown, unrecovered object.
- Campbell alleged the object was ejected from the mower.
- Minish testified he briefly inspected the lawn for foreign objects before mowing, watched where he was going while mowing, saw nothing in the mower’s path, and did not recall striking any object.
- Plaintiffs sued Minish and the Koviches for negligence and related damages (including emotional distress and loss of consortium).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced evidence creating a genuine issue that Minish breached the duty of reasonable care in operating the mower.
2. Whether the Koviches could be held liable for Campbell’s injury under premises-liability duties owed to Campbell.
3. Whether the Koviches could be held vicariously or otherwise liable for Minish’s conduct under independent-contractor theories (including retained control, negligent selection, or an inherently dangerous activity exception).

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Minish and the Koviches under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- Assuming (without deciding) that the mower caused the injury, the court held plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Minish breached a duty of care.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to establish a basis to impose liability on the homeowners, either directly under premises liability or indirectly through contractor-based exceptions to nonliability.

## Legal Principles

- Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a party opposing summary disposition must present documentary evidence of specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; allegations alone are insufficient.
- Even if causation is assumed, negligence requires evidence of breach; an injury’s occurrence, without evidence of unreasonable conduct, does not permit a reasonable inference of negligence.
- Homeowners are generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor absent a recognized exception, such as retained control over the work’s manner, negligent selection, or a qualifying inherently dangerous activity.
- Ordinary lawn mowing is not inherently dangerous for purposes of imposing liability on a party who hires an independent contractor.
- A landowner’s duty to a licensee is limited to warning of hidden dangers actually known to the landowner and not known to the licensee; absent evidence of such knowledge, no breach is shown.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for all defendants because plaintiffs did not produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the mower operator acted unreasonably, and they also failed to show any premises-liability breach or applicable exception that would make the homeowners responsible for an independent contractor’s routine lawn-mowing work.


Campbell v. Kovich, 273 Mich. App. 227, 731 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)