Judge Mark T. Boonstra dissented, criticizing the majority’s ruling and particularly taking issue with the vague reasoning offered by Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana M. Hathaway. Hathaway had ruled in September 2022 that Love’s negligence claim could proceed, but Judge Boonstra described Hathaway’s explanation as unclear and poorly worded, especially regarding the reference to “safer options.”
In his dissent, Judge Boonstra argued that Love’s decision to cross over the conveyor belt was contrary to the airline’s policy, which instructed agents to use their designated workstations’ belts and communicate with colleagues when crossing other belts. He contended that Love’s actions were a direct violation of the airline’s policy, and her allegations should have been treated as premises liability, not general negligence, since Alaska Airlines did not possess or control the area in question.
The majority, however, maintained that the allegations centered on how the airline managed its workplace and trained employees, a broader duty of care that extended beyond its control over the physical space.
