Picture this: you’re at the car dealership for a quick tire fix, with nothing to do but kill time. Why not stretch your legs and take the dog for a walk? But instead of enjoying a quiet stroll, you step into an eight-foot-deep hole on the dealership lot that you never saw coming. That’s exactly how Michael Fox’s day went sideways—and now, years later, his injuries and legal battle drag on.

Michael Fox brought his Toyota 4Runner to J. Allen Toyota in Gulfport, Mississippi, in March 2019 for what should’ve been a straightforward repair: new tires and an airbag recall fix. While the technicians worked, Fox decided to take their dog for a walk on dealership property. Strolling through a grassy area near the dealership’s driveway, he stepped into an unmarked, eight-foot-deep hole. Its opening was under 8-inches by 8-inches, hidden by undergrowth. But its depth left him trapped up to his knee and maimed his leg, knee, and back. His injuries would require multiple surgeries.

Was Fox being carless, or was the dealership negligent for leaving the unmarked hole?

Fox’s lawyer, Andrew McCullough, argued that the hole at the dealership was a ticking time bomb: “It would have been visible for several months before the accident.” Fox’s team even brought in an engineer to back up the claim, asserting that any reasonable inspection would have uncovered the hazard. According to Fox, the dealership encouraged pets, which made it reasonable for him to assume the grassy area was safe.

J. Allen Toyota’s president had previously stated, “Animals are welcome on the dealership’s property,” but he later added, “I think there were better areas for dog walking than where Fox chose.”

The dealership’s defense painted a very different picture. They labeled Fox as a trespasser, arguing he had ventured “100 feet beyond the swivel gate” to a “remote area” not intended for customers. They claimed the hole wasn’t in a part of the property where business was conducted, saying Fox had no reason to be there. “This was not an area of the dealership open to public use,” they argued.

A lower court initially sided with the dealership, dismissing Fox’s case. But last month, an appeals court ruled the suit must go to trial. The court found enough evidence to question whether the dealership “should have reasonably known about the dangerous condition” and taken steps to warn customers.

So, who’s at fault here? Should Fox have been more cautious while walking in an unfamiliar area? Or should the dealership have inspected its property more carefully? As the case heads to trial, one thing is clear: Fox’s fall isn’t just about an accident—it’s about the blurred lines of responsibility on private property. And the outcome could change how businesses think about customer safety for years to come.