## Facts

- Lee Dykema attended an outdoor three-on-three basketball tournament organized by Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc. in Belding, Michigan, as a nonpaying spectator.
- The event charged no admission fee, and spectators were free to come and go.
- A severe thunderstorm with high winds approached during the tournament.
- Dykema sought shelter near or under a tree and was struck by a falling limb, resulting in paralysis.
- Dykema and his wife sued, alleging the organizers knew or should have known of the dangerous weather and failed to warn or protect spectators, claiming a “special relationship” created a duty to act.
- The trial court granted summary disposition to defendants, ruling no duty existed; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an outdoor sporting event sponsor owes a duty to warn or protect a nonpaying spectator from injury caused by an approaching thunderstorm.
2. Whether a “special relationship” existed between the event organizers and the spectator sufficient to impose a duty to protect against an external natural hazard.
3. Whether summary disposition was proper where the duty question turned on undisputed facts about the spectator’s freedom of movement and the obviousness of the weather risk.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendants.
- The court held no special relationship existed between Dykema and the organizers.
- Absent a special relationship or undertaking to provide protection, defendants owed no duty to warn of or protect against the approaching thunderstorm.
- The court treated the thunderstorm as an open and obvious natural condition that a reasonably prudent person could observe and respond to independently.
- Because duty is a question of law and the material facts were undisputed, the case was properly resolved at the summary disposition stage.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence, a duty to warn or protect another from external forces generally arises only where a special relationship exists.
- A special relationship typically requires entrustment of one’s safety to another and a consequent loss of the ability to protect oneself.
- When a person is not restricted in movement and retains full control over whether to stay, leave, or seek shelter, the entrustment element is lacking.
- Organizers of a free-admission outdoor event do not, solely by hosting the event, assume a legal duty to warn spectators of readily observable severe weather.
- Courts may decide duty as a matter of law on summary disposition where no reasonable factfinder could conclude a special relationship existed on the undisputed record.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a nonpaying spectator who remained free to leave or seek shelter did not entrust his safety to tournament organizers, and because the approaching thunderstorm was an obvious natural hazard, the organizers owed no duty to warn or protect him; summary disposition for defendants was therefore affirmed.


Dykema v. Gus Macker Enters., Inc., 196 Mich. App. 6, 492 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992)