Court Opinion

ID: 9657548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:30:07.743182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.308672
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I am constrained to agree with Mr. Justice Adams. I regard myself as bound by his cited authority of Sparks v. Luplow (1963), 372 Mich 198, and the additional authority of Lipsitz v. Schechter (1966), 377 Mich 685 (1 NCCA *6504th 421). In Lipsitz it was stipulated that there was no actual notice, and that the question of notice of the alleged defective condition of the premises was limited to constructive notice. The same could have been done here.
It is not contended that defendant here had actual notice.
However, I cannot disregard the language in Lip-sits, at p 689:
“A jury could find that the defendants would have had notice of a defective condition of the screen if there had been reasonable supervision.”
In the case at bar defendant offered no proof. There was no evidence of any kind of supervision in the record. Hence, I do not see how it was possible to determine, as a matter of law, whether supervision was reasonable.
Consequently, I concur with Justice Adams’ result.