Exziner Lloyd v. Tsfr Apple Venture LLC
333069
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a business invitee at defendant TSFR Apple Venture, LLC’s Applebee’s, slipped and fell on tiled flooring near the kitchen after returning from the restroom and noticed oily residue on her hands and knees.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant knew or should have known about the dangerous floor condition or negligently created it and failed to maintain/warn.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted it, finding no genuine issue of material fact on notice or creation of the hazard.
- The Court of Appeals treated the motion as one under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and reviewed the record de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
- No witness (including plaintiff on her initial walk to the restroom) observed grease on the floor; some witnesses inspected the area after the fall and saw none.
- The court concluded evidence of residue on plaintiff’s hands/knees did not establish constructive or actual notice or that defendant created the hazard; summary disposition affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had actual notice of the floor hazard | Plaintiff contends defendant knew the floor was hazardous | Defendant denies actual knowledge | No evidence of actual notice; issue not established |
| Whether defendant had constructive notice of the hazard | Plaintiff argues floor cleaning lapse and oily residue imply the hazard existed long enough that defendant should have discovered it | Defendant argues no evidence the condition existed for sufficient time or was observable | Constructive notice not shown; plaintiff traversed area earlier with no sign and evidence is speculative |
| Whether defendant created the dangerous condition (active negligence) | Plaintiff contends grease likely came from staff/kitchen given location near server/kitchen path | Defendant points out restroom path and patron sources; no evidence of creation by staff | No proof defendant created the condition; claim speculative—notice requirement remains unmet |
| Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) | Plaintiff argues genuine factual dispute exists about presence and source of residue | Defendant argues record lacks evidence to raise a fact question on notice or creation | Summary disposition affirmed—no genuine issue of material fact on notice or creation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuddington v. United Health Servs., 298 Mich. App. 264 (discussing treatment of motions as C(10) when records beyond pleadings considered)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard for de novo review and C(10) summary disposition)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Services, 296 Mich. App. 685 (premises-liability framework: injury from dangerous condition on land)
- Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash Inc., 486 Mich. 913 (premises-liability distinction acknowledged)
- Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich. App. 1 (elements of a premises liability claim)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (landowner duty to known or discoverable dangerous conditions)
- Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591 (duty and breach in premises liability)
- Clark v. Kmart Corp., 465 Mich. 416 (constructive notice: condition’s character or duration establishes notice)
- Lowery v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc., 500 Mich. 1 (plaintiff’s burden to show hazard’s character or duration for constructive notice)
- Williams v. Borman’s Foods, Inc., 191 Mich. App. 320 (when landowner or agent creates condition, notice need not be shown)