be permitted if the defendant breaches his duty of reasonable care.” Id. Plaintiff contends that the icy driveway contained a special aspect because the driveway presented a risk of high severity of harm such that it amounted to an unreasonably dangerous condition. In Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 518; 629 NW2d 384 (2001), our Supreme Court provided the following illustration of an unreasonably dangerous condition: [C]onsider an unguarded thirty foot deep pit in the middle of a parking lot. The condition might well be open and obvious, and one would likely be capable of avoiding the danger. Nevertheless, this situation would present such a substantial risk of death or severe injury to one who fell in the pit that it would be unre d), 251 Mich App 1, 6-7; 649 NW2d 392 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Royce v Chatwell Club Apartments, 276 Mich
holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm holding that icecovered steps did not present a high likelihood of harm or severity of harm holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative holding that the risk of slipping and falling on ice is not sufficiently similar to those special aspects discussed in lugo to constitute a uniquely high likelihood or severity of harm and remove the condition from the open and obvious danger doctrine holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer