By Thomas Franz
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT-A Michigan Court of Appeals panel reversed a Washtenaw County Circuit Court ruling that granted summary disposition in a hotel spider bite case.
In Heuschneider v. Wolverine Superior Hospitality, the COA remanded the case by determining that a question of fact existed if the hotel breached its duty for pest control management.
"The innkeeper doctrine said an innkeeper has a duty to keep their rooms free of pests," said plaintiff's attorney David R. Parker of Charfoos & Christensen PC in Royal Oak.
Judges Cynthia Diane Stephens, Elizabeth L. Gleicher, and Mark T. Boonstra ruled unanimously in the unpublished opinion.
Background
The case stems from a spider bite that the plaintiff sustained while staying at a Comfort Inn in Ann Arbor.
According to the COA's opinion, the plaintiff said emergency room doctors informed him that he was bitten by a brown recluse spider. They determined this after seeing how the plaintiff's body reacted to the spider's venom.
He sustained a left leg abscess, cellulitis of the left leg wound, necrosis of the left leg wound, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, pleural effusion, pulmonary infarction, multiple surgeries to his leg and chest, weeks of inpatient hospitalization, and rehabilitation.
Legal action
The plaintiff filed a suit based on four theories: innkeeper's liability, premises liability, ordinary negligence and nuisance. He claimed that the defendant had a duty to provide reasonably safe accommodations and they failed to protect or warn guests of the dangerous condition.
That was the basis for the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's failure to maintain the accommodations proximately caused the spider bite.
The defendant filed a motion for summary disposition and argued the plaintiff was unable to produce competent evidence showing that the alleged spider didn't arrive in the hotel room by way of the plaintiff's own clothing or luggage.
The COA also wrote that the defendant also argued no duty to the plaintiff under the doctrine of ferae naturae, which asserts that landowners cannot be held liable for the actions of wild animals on their property unless the animals were in the landowner's possession or control.
The trial court granted the motion for summary disposition.
Analysis
The COA panel cited Upthegrove v. Myers (1980) to state that "an innkeeper has a duty to protect guests from injury. The innkeeper must exercise ordinary care and prudence to keep his premises reasonably safe for business invitees."
It also cited MCL 125.474 to state that the owner of every dwelling shall be responsible for keeping the entire building free from vermin.
The COA wrote that the trial court relied on the affidavit of an entomology expert who stated that spiders are wild animals, and because of that, it was an absolute defense to the claims of premises liability, innkeeper's liability, negligence and nuisance.
However, the panel determined that the trial court was incorrect in its application of ferae naturae because it found that spiders were not vermin.
The COA cited a dictionary definition of vermin to declare that a spider is an arachnid belonging to the same class as mites.
"Spiders fit within the common meaning of vermin," the court wrote.
Regarding foreseeability, the COA wrote that the hotel manager testified that one-third of the hotel's rooms were sprayed monthly on a rotational basis, but she wasn't sure when the plaintiff's room was last sprayed. Service reports showed that the plaintiff's room was last sprayed on June 8, 2015, and the incident occurred on Aug. 20, 2015.
The entomology expert testified that brown recluse spiders usually aren't found in Michigan, but there were isolated discoveries of them in Ann Arbor. He said spiders were known to travel on clothing or luggage, but it was also possible for the spider to be in the hotel room when the plaintiff arrived.
The plaintiff testified that he first encountered the spider when he was under the hotel's bedding for the first time.
"A question of fact exists as to whether defendant's practices for pest control management breached its duty to keep the premises reasonably safe and free from vermin," the court wrote. "Reasonable minds could disagree as to whether defendant breached its duty in this instance and whether the breach proximately caused plaintiff's injuries."
Attorneys' comments
Parker said this case could bring some clarity to hotel spider bite cases in Michigan.
"Judge Gleicher said there's not a lot of Michigan law on this. Everyone knows this is the innkeeper's duty, but there's never been a case saying it. Now this is a case saying it," Parker said.
Parker said finding the spraying record proved to be key to the case's reversal.
"When you ask different people, you get a differing idea of what the schedule for spraying was and whether this particular room had been sprayed recently," Parker said. "It was known that the time since the last spray was longer than the effectiveness of the chemicals used. From June 8 to Aug. 20, it was possible the room went unsprayed during that period."
Defense attorney Joseph N. Fraser of Johnston, Sztykiel & Hunt PC in Troy said his side will likely appeal the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
"The core of what the COA got wrong relates to the causation issue and the idea there is no way for them to show the spider didn't come in with this person who had been traveling across the country that day," Fraser said.
Fraser said a jury would have to guess as to how the spider got in the room without any evidence pointing to one way or another.
"Nobody knows where the spider came from. The first time he noticed it may have been in his bed, but it's possible for bugs to be transported," Fraser said.
That argument will be part of the basis of the defendant's appeal to the Supreme Court, Fraser said.
"They mentioned in the opinion that plaintiff testified that he did not transport the spider but encountered it when he was under the hotel's bedding for the first time. I don't think the first part of that sentence was an accurate reflection of the record because the plaintiff didn't testify that he didn't transport the spider, in fact, he couldn't have testified to that. Even if he did, it's sort of impossible for him to reach that conclusion," Fraser said.
Regarding the innkeeper's statute, Fraser said the definition of vermin causes a potential for conflict.
"I think we have an issue there as well because even in the opinion, the statute talks about trying to use certain efforts to keep the place free of vermin, but the way vermin is defined as a common animal, I think they got it wrong there as well," Fraser said.
"These spiders are something typically found in warmer climates. They occasionally show up in college towns because people travel in from across the country, but to say it's a common animal is way too much of a stretch."
Published: Thu, Aug 08, 2019
