Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a premises owner seeking summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) may prevail by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element, including actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ requirement that the premises owner present evidence concerning the scope of a reasonable inspection to establish lack of constructive notice. It reversed the Court of Appeals regarding notice, vacated the remainder of its judgment, and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for the defendant.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a premises owner moving for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) must present affirmative evidence negating the notice element of a premises liability claim.
- Whether a premises owner must provide evidence describing a reasonable inspection and showing that such an inspection would not have revealed the hazard in order to establish lack of constructive notice.
- Whether Lowrey presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the diner’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet stairs.
Holdings
- A premises owner may obtain summary disposition by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the premises liability claim; the owner is not required to present affirmative evidence negating that element.
- A premises owner moving for summary disposition is not required to present evidence of what a reasonable or routine inspection would have entailed or to prove that such an inspection would not have revealed the hazard.
- Lowrey failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the diner’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet stairs, so the defendant was entitled to summary disposition.
Key quotations
“The moving party may thus satisfy its burden under MCR 2.116(C)(10) by “submit[ting] affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim,” or by “demonstrat[ing] to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.”” (6)
“The Court of Appeals erred when it imposed an additional requirement on defendant: to proffer evidence to negate one of the elements of plaintiff’s claim.” (7)
“We hold that plaintiff failed to proffer evidence sufficient to demonstrate a question of fact regarding defendant’s actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition, and defendant was entitled to summary disposition on this basis.” (9)
Factual background
Lowrey went to Woody’s Diner with friends on March 17, 2013, and used the back stairs several times without incident. While exiting the diner at approximately 1:45 a.m., she fell on the stairs and suffered tibia and fibula fractures. She did not see water on the stairs before or after the fall, but assumed the stairs were wet because her clothing was wet afterward. There were no reports of other falls or complaints about slippery stairs, and Lowrey presented no evidence establishing when the alleged condition arose or that the diner knew or should have known of it.
Procedural history
Lowrey sued after falling on stairs at Woody’s Diner, alleging that wet and slippery stairs caused her injuries. The Oakland Circuit Court granted summary disposition for the defendant, finding that Lowrey failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual or constructive notice and alternatively finding the condition open and obvious. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the defendant had to present evidence concerning what a reasonable inspection would have entailed and whether it would have revealed the hazard. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals regarding notice, reinstated the trial court’s summary-disposition order, and vacated the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
Remand instructions
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment regarding notice, reinstated the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of Woody’s Diner on that issue, and vacated the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. No substantive remand instructions were provided.