# Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co.

> Michigan Supreme Court · November 13, 1987 · 429 Mich. 347

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741910

## Case

- **Full name:** Kreski v. Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Company; Reetz v. Tipit, Incorporated
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 13, 1987
- **Citations:** 429 Mich. 347; 415 N.W.2d 178
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Boyle
- **Judges:** Boyle, Cavanagh, Levin, Brickley, Archer, Griffin, Riley
- **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Lego v. Liss.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741910

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the firefighter's rule "insulates a defendant from liability for injuries arising out of the inherent dangers of the profession" of a safety officer and determining that "inherent dangers" include "alleged negligence relating to the condition of the premises"
- recognizing exceptional cases, such as those involving willful misconduct, in which courts have refused to apply firefighter's rule to bar action; similarly adopting flexible approach to address "different fact patterns as they are presented"
- applying the firemen's rule to bar a tort lawsuit arising from injury sustained by a police officer in a public street
- stating that the rule premised liability on the basis of traditional status categories of entrants upon property of another

## Opinion text

Boyle, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the rationale and result in Kreski v Modern Wholesale Electric. I do not agree, however, that a concealed trap door is, as a matter of law, a "normal, inherent, and foreseeable risk[ ] of the chosen profession.” (Ante, p 372.) Nor can I agree, as a matter of law, that in these circumstances, the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff. The questions of defendant’s knowledge of the danger and opportunity to warn, Clark v Corby, 75 Wis 2d 292 ; 249 NW2d 567 (1977), are essentially factual matters. Because I am not convinced on this record that amendment of the complaint would be futile, Ben P Fyke & Sons v Gunter Co, 390 Mich 649 , 213 NW2d 134 (1973), I would remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741910. Public record. Not legal advice.