Gleason v. Target Corporation, 2:23-cv-11337

Victoria Gleason sued Target Corporation after slipping and falling inside a Target store, fracturing her kneecap.
Gleason claimed she slipped on water possibly from snow on shopping carts but admitted she did not see any liquid before or after her fall.
She did not report the incident to Target staff at the time, only later that night.
Gleason brought claims for premises liability, gross negligence, and nuisance under Michigan law.
Target moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence for any dangerous condition and legal deficiencies in Gleason's claims.
The case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Premises Liability	Target failed to protect against dangerous conditions (snow/water from carts caused her fall).	No evidence a dangerous condition existed or that Target knew of one.	No evidence of breach or dangerous condition; summary judgment for Target.
Gross Negligence	Target's conduct was grossly negligent	No independent claim for gross negligence; no evidence of gross negligence.	Claim fails as matter of law and for lack of evidence.
Nuisance	Conditions at Target amounted to a nuisance	No interference with land or public rights; legal deficiency.	Plaintiff forfeited claim by not responding; claim fails as a matter of law.

Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 821 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2012) (sets out the duty owed by landowners to invitees under Michigan premises liability law)
Est. of Goodwin by Goodwin v. Nw. Michigan Fair Ass’n, 923 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018) (describes the elements of a premises liability claim in Michigan)
Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 487 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. 1992) (explains the distinction between public and private nuisance in Michigan law)
Sholberg v. Truman, 852 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. 2014) (defines what constitutes a public nuisance under Michigan law)