Court Opinion

ID: 9407994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 06:06:05.504733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.021622
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                            STATE OF MICHIGAN

                             COURT OF APPEALS

MAMIE SANDERS-BROWN,                                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                         July 6, 2023
                Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                        No. 360786
                                                                         Wayne Circuit Court
MEIJER, INC.,                                                            LC No. 20-011871-NO

                Defendant-Appellee.

Before: HOOD, P.J., and SHAPIRO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        In this slip-and-fall case, plaintiff appeals by right the trial court’s order granting
defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that defendant did not have notice of
the slippery condition. We affirm.

                                         I. BACKGROUND

        This case arises from an incident on August 4, 2020, at a Meijer store in Livonia, Michigan.
When plaintiff entered the store, she took a grocery cart and headed toward the frozen-food section
located near the main entrance. When plaintiff went to turn left into the frozen-food aisle, she
slipped, her feet went in two different directions, and she landed on her bottom. Plaintiff testified
that her left foot hit the bottom of a freezer. Plaintiff realized she was sitting in water after her fall
because her clothes were wet. Plaintiff described the spot of water as a puddle. Ernest Banks was
defendant’s store detective on duty that day and described the water as a “small puddle” in his e-
mail summarizing the incident. At his deposition, Banks described the water as a “couple streaks.”
Other employees described the puddle as “golf ball” or “baseball” size, and as a “small amount of
water.” These descriptions are more or less consistent with photographs of the water taken by
plaintiff after her fall.

        The primary issue in this case is whether defendant had notice of the water that caused
plaintiff’s fall. Plaintiff claims that defendant had constructive notice of the puddle because
defendant knew its freezers and coolers were prone to leak condensation onto the floor during
summer. Multiple store employees were deposed and generally agreed that the freezers and
coolers leaked water during warm months. The employees explained that sometimes they placed

                                                   -1-
absorbent socks in the aisles as a preventative measure to keep water from collecting near the
coolers. After the incident, plaintiff’s counsel took photographs from the Meijer in Livonia and
other Meijer stores showing condensation leakage and water accumulation from the frozen-food
freezers.

        After discovery was completed, defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR
2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact), on the ground that plaintiff had no evidence
identifying the source of the puddle and failed to establish a question of fact that the source of the
water was a leaking freezer. Defendant relied on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not
see water coming from the freezer, and she did not know where the water originated. Similarly,
Meijer employees who responded to plaintiff’s fall also did not know from where the water
originated. Further, no employee noticed the freezers leaking on the day plaintiff fell.
Accordingly, defendant argued, there was no evidence establishing that the freezer nearest the
water puddle was leaking on the day of plaintiff’s fall. In response, plaintiff argued that the sum
of the evidence, including that freezer leakage during hot summer months was a common
occurrence in Meijer stores, either demonstrated that defendant had notice of the hazard or created
a genuine issue of material fact regarding notice.

        After hearing oral argument, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. The court concluded that there was no objective evidence that the freezer in
question—the endcap freezer adjacent to the main aisle where plaintiff fell—was leaking, or that
if it was leaking, it produced a trail of water that would have given defendant notice of the leak.
The court also found plaintiff’s theory, that defendant had notice of the water because other
freezers in that Meijer and different Meijer stores leaked, was insufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact regarding defendant’s notice of the puddle plaintiff encountered.

                                          II. ANALYSIS

       On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact
regarding whether defendant had notice of the slippery condition. We disagree.1

        In general, “a premises possessor owes a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to
protect the invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the
land.” Finazzo v Fire Equip Co, 323 Mich App 620, 626; 918 NW2d 200 (2018) (quotation marks
and citation omitted). “Breach occurs if the premises owner knows or should have known of a

1
  A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Ormsby v
Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 45, 52; 684 NW2d 320 (2004). When reviewing a motion under
MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court considers the affidavits, depositions, pleadings, admissions, and
other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rose
v Nat’l Auction Group, Inc, 466 Mich 453, 461; 646 NW2d 455 (2002). Summary disposition is
appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Id. “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving
the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable
minds might differ.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d 468 (2003).

                                                 -2-
dangerous condition and fails to protect invitees via repair, warning, or other appropriate
mitigation of the danger under the given circumstances.” Albitus v Greektown Casino, LLC, 339
Mich App 557, 563; 984 NW2d 511 (2021). Accordingly, “actual or constructive notice of the
relevant dangerous condition is an essential element in establishing a premises liability claim.” Id.
A defendant can “establish its entitlement to summary disposition by demonstrating that plaintiff
failed to present sufficient evidence of notice.” Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms LLC, 326 Mich App
1, 18; 930 NW2d 393 (2018).

        In this case, plaintiff argues that defendant had constructive notice of the slippery
condition. Generally, constructive notice may arise from the passage of time, from the type of
condition involved, “or from a combination of the two elements.” Banks v Exxon Mobil Corp, 477
Mich 983 (2007). Plaintiff, however, is not claiming that the puddle had existed for a sufficient
amount time or was of such a character that it should have been discovered by defendant. Rather,
plaintiff argues that defendant had constructive notice because accumulated water on store floors
caused by leaking freezers is a recurring condition at Meijer stores. This theory of constructive
notice is consistent with our decision in Andrews v K Mart Corp, 181 Mich App 666, 669; 450
NW2d 27 (1989), where the plaintiff tripped over a curled rug when leaving the store during
winter. We held that there was a question of fact as to whether the defendant had constructive
notice of this condition when there was evidence that the defendant knew the rugs tended to curl
up in wintertime. Id. at 672.

        But while plaintiff presents a viable theory, she fails to establish a necessary premise to her
claim, i.e., that the puddle which caused her fall resulted from a leaking freezer. Neither plaintiff
nor any of the employees were able to trace the origin of the puddle of water, and there was no
evidence that any of the store’s freezers were leaking on the day plaintiff fell. Plaintiff also did
not present any evidence showing that the particular freezer where she fell was known to leak.
Further, the evidence regarding the puddle’s proximity to the freezer is insufficient to create a
material question of fact.2 Plaintiff testified that the puddle was “right in front of the freezer,” and
Banks testified that “there was a wet spot near the cooler.” However, it is unclear from the
photographs taken by plaintiff how close the puddle was to the freezer, and there does not appear
to be a trail of water connecting the two. Under these circumstances, a conclusion that the puddle
originated from a leaking freezer would necessarily be based on speculation. See Estate of
Trueblood v P&G Apartments, LLC, 327 Mich App 275, 289; 933 NW2d 732 (2019) (“Speculation
cannot create a question of fact.”).

       The foregoing also precludes plaintiff’s alternative argument that defendant’s active
negligence in maintaining the freezer created the hazardous puddle that caused plaintiff to fall,
negating the need to show defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.
See Pugno, 326 Mich App at 18 (“Where the possessor is the one who created the condition,
knowledge of the condition is imputed to the possessor . . . .”). See also Williams v Borman’s
Foods, Inc, 191 Mich App 320, 321; 477 NW2d 425 (1991) (explaining notice is not necessary

2
  Defendant’s reliance on evidence regarding plaintiff’s location after her fall is unpersuasive.
Specifically, that plaintiff was found by store employees resting against the pallets in the middle
of the main aisle says nothing about the location of the wet spot.

                                                  -3-
where the defendant created the dangerous condition through its own active negligence). Under
this theory, in order to establish that any negligence by defendant in maintaining the freezer was
the cause of her injuries, plaintiff would still need to show that the water she slipped on originated
from the freezer. For the reasons discussed, plaintiff has not established a question of fact on that
matter.

        In summary, the trial court did not err by concluding that plaintiff failed to create a genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether defendant had notice of the slippery condition.3

       Affirmed.

                                                               /s/ Noah P. Hood
                                                               /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
                                                               /s/ Christopher P. Yates

3
 Given this conclusion, we need not address defendant’s argument regarding the open and obvious
doctrine.

                                                 -4-