No Enhanced Duty for Voluntary Safety Precautions: Saunders v. Home Depot

Introduction

In Angela Saunders v. Home Depot, Inc., 2025 WL 1234567 (6th Cir. June 5, 2025) (not recommended for publication), the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed Michigan law principles limiting merchant liability for the failure of voluntarily assumed safety measures. The plaintiff, Angela Saunders, slipped and was injured in a socially‐distanced checkout line at a Michigan Home Depot during the COVID-19 pandemic. She sued Home Depot for negligence, alleging the store’s traffic‐control measures were implemented negligently. The district court dismissed her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

This commentary analyzes the court’s decision, the precedents cited, its legal reasoning, and the potential impact on future negligence and premises-liability claims under Michigan law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s dismissal of Saunders’s second federal complaint. Applying Michigan substantive law, the court held that:

Saunders’s claim sounded in ordinary negligence, not premises liability, because she challenged Home Depot’s voluntary traffic‐control measures rather than any dangerous condition on the premises.
Under Michigan’s “voluntary‐assumption‐of‐duty” doctrine, a merchant that takes safety precautions owes only a duty to exercise reasonable care in performing those measures—not an absolute guarantee of customer safety.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s rule in Scott v. Harper Recreation, Inc., 506 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. 1993), extends to ordinary negligence claims, barring liability even if voluntary safety measures prove less effective than they might have been.
Saunders’s complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Home Depot breached any duty beyond reasonable implementation of its social‐distancing policy. Accordingly, her negligence claim was not “plausible on its face” under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court’s analysis rests on a line of Michigan authorities distinguishing ordinary negligence from premises liability, and on the “no‐liability for failed safety measures” rule first articulated in Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 418 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. 1988), and extended in Scott. Key cases include:

Est. of Livings v. Sage’s Inv. Grp., LLC, 968 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. 2021): Four‐element framework (duty, breach, causation, damages) for Michigan negligence and premises liability claims.
Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., 809 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. 2011): Defines the standard of care and the duty element in negligence cases.
Hart v. Ludwig, 79 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. 1956): Establishes the voluntary‐assumption‐of‐duty doctrine.
Beaudrie v. Henderson, 631 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2001): Confirms that duty is a question of law for the court.
Jahnke v. Allen, 865 N.W.2d 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014): Contrasts the duty in ordinary negligence with that in premises liability.
Scott v. Harper Recreation, Inc., 506 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. 1993): Rejects liability when a merchant’s voluntary safety advertising or measures fall short of full protection.
Buczkowski v. McKay, 490 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 1992): Reinforces that reasonable care is the governing standard.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion proceeds in three steps:

Characterization of the Claim: Saunders alleged that a Home Depot employee directing checkout traffic negligently controlled customers moving in line. This is an ordinary negligence theory—based on voluntary measures—not a premises‐liability claim that would require a dangerous condition on the land and notice to Home Depot.
Duty Analysis: Under ordinary negligence, a defendant owes a duty to use reasonable care in any undertaking. Home Depot’s social‐distancing measures were voluntary steps to curb COVID-19 transmission; so the store owed no duty beyond implementing those measures with reasonable care. The court rejected any broader duty to eliminate all customer‐to‐customer contact, which would effectively guarantee safety.
No Liability for Ineffective Precautions: Invoking Scott and Williams, the court held that Michigan law does not impose liability when voluntary safety measures prove less effective or comprehensive than they could have been. A merchant that advertises or enforces partial safety steps is not penalized for failing to anticipate every risk.

Because Saunders’s complaint did not plead facts showing that Home Depot breached its limited duty of reasonable care, her negligence claim was not “plausible on its face” under Iqbal and Twombly, and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper.

3. Impact

This decision underscores and clarifies several points for future litigation under Michigan law:

Merchants’ Voluntary Measures: Businesses that implement voluntary safety protocols—whether for pandemic control, parking security, or other hazards—owe only a duty to execute those measures reasonably. They do not assume a higher duty to guarantee complete safety.
Claim Framing: Plaintiffs must carefully plead premises-liability claims if they rely on a hazardous condition of land, or else their negligence theories will be confined to voluntary undertakings.
Rule 12(b)(6) Scrutiny: Federal courts applying Michigan law will continue to dismiss complaints that fail to allege a breach of a recognized duty, especially where the only asserted duty arises from voluntary safety steps.
Broader Context: The case may influence how retailers, restaurants, and other premises possessors design and communicate safety measures—structuring their signage and policies to define explicitly the scope of any assumed duty.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ordinary Negligence vs. Premises Liability: Ordinary negligence involves a duty arising from any undertaken activity (e.g., directing traffic), while premises liability concerns a duty to warn or make safe dangerous conditions on land (e.g., a pothole in a parking lot).
Voluntary Assumption of Duty: If you choose to do something for another—like directing checkout lines—you must do it with reasonable care. You are not liable if you fail to take every conceivable precaution.
Rule 12(b)(6) Plausibility Standard: A complaint survives dismissal only if its factual allegations allow a court to draw a reasonable inference of liability. Conclusory assertions without supporting facts will not suffice.
No-Liability Rule for Failed Precautions: Under Michigan law, merchants that provide partial safety measures cannot be sued for the measures’ failure to eliminate all risk.

Conclusion

Saunders v. Home Depot reaffirms that under Michigan law, a premises possessor’s voluntary safety protocols do not create an open-ended duty to guarantee customer safety. The Sixth Circuit’s decision clarifies that merchants owe only a duty of reasonable care in implementing voluntary measures and cannot be held liable when those measures prove imperfect. This ruling will guide litigants and businesses in framing negligence claims and designing safety policies, reinforcing the balance between encouraging voluntary protections and avoiding overbroad liability.