United States: No Duty To Provide Parking Lot Signs

A store's owner is not liable for injuries sustained due to a lack of traffic signs in a store parking lot. Kirejczyk v. Hall, No. 233708 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2002). In this case, the Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident in a Sears' store parking lot. She claimed that the parking lot was unreasonably dangerous in its design and layout because it had no traffic signs or signals.

The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed. Although a premises possessor owes invitees a duty to protect them against unreasonable risk of harm caused by dangerous conditions on the land, this duty does not include removing open and obvious dangers. The appellate court noted that businesses do not typically provide traffic signs in parking lots, and that the lack of signs is open and obvious but not unreasonably dangerous.

The Plaintiff argued that the open and obvious doctrine should not preclude her suit because she was a passenger in a car and was unable to react to the open and obvious dangers. In rejecting her argument, the Court of Appeals explained that the open and obvious doctrine applies to the question of the store owner’s duty; it is not simply a defense. The appellate court further explained that drivers are expected to rely on traffic laws and customary practices while driving in parking lots. A store owner has no duty to provide traffic signs.

While the court in this unpublished decision holds that store owners are not required to post traffic signs in parking lots to keep their customers safe, posting proper signs will help store owners avoid such claims.