Jeffrey P Bacon v. Sunshine Products of Mid-Michigan LLC
330332
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- In Oct. 2013, plaintiff Jeffrey Bacon slipped on a wooden exterior deck at Sunshine Products after leaving the store and was injured.
- Bacon testified the deck felt “slippery and slimy” and that the substance was nearly invisible, felt part of the wood, left no residue, and might have been mold or mildew.
- Sunshine’s manager (Quillen) inspected the deck, assisted Bacon, and stated she did not observe any slippery substance; a companion (Gauss) also did not notice a slippery condition later that day.
- No other reports or incidents of slipping on the deck were presented; Bacon and Gauss both had prior visits without noticing such a condition.
- Sunshine moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) arguing it lacked notice of any defective condition; the trial court granted the motion, concluding there was no evidence the substance was caused by Sunshine or that it existed long enough that Sunshine should have known.
- Bacon appealed, arguing Sunshine should be charged with constructive notice (and relied on Lowrey), but the court affirmed summary disposition, noting controlling law places the burden on plaintiffs to show notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sunshine had notice of the deck’s slippery condition | Bacon: Sunshine should be charged with constructive notice because the deck lacked a mat/handrail and the condition could have existed long enough to be discovered | Sunshine: No evidence it caused the condition, knew of it, or that it existed long enough to be discoverable by reasonable inspections | Court: No genuine issue; plaintiff failed to show actual or constructive notice, so summary disposition was proper |
| Whether defendant failed to perform reasonable inspections | Bacon: Reliant on Lowrey to argue defendant offered no proof of routine inspections | Sunshine: Manager testified she regularly inspected and did not observe the condition; plaintiff bears burden to show notice | Court: Plaintiff bears burden to show notice; summary disposition appropriate (Supreme Court has clarified defendant need not prove inspections) |
| Whether there was a genuine factual dispute about cause of the fall | Bacon: Contends cause is disputed (slippery substance) | Sunshine: Evidence does not link condition to Sunshine or show sufficient duration | Court: Declined to reach cause issue because trial court decision rested on absence of notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Riddle v. McLouth Steel Prod. Corp., 440 Mich. 85 (Michigan Supreme Court) (duty and negligence principles)
- Clark v. K-Mart Corp., 465 Mich. 416 (Michigan Supreme Court) (storekeeper premises-liability standards)
- Serinto v. Borman Food Stores, 380 Mich. 637 (Michigan Supreme Court) (constructive notice and storekeeper liability)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (summary-disposition de novo review and C(10) standard)
- Candelaria v. BC Gen. Contractors, Inc., 236 Mich. App. 67 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (appellate review limits on issues not decided below)
- Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc., 313 Mich. App. 500 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (relied on by plaintiff but limited by subsequent Michigan Supreme Court guidance)