Krystal Lowrey v. Lmps & Lmpj Inc, 153025

On March 17, 2013, Krystal Lowrey fell on the back stairs of Woody’s Diner late at night and broke her tibia and fibula; she claimed the steps were wet and the diner knew or should have known of the hazard.
Lowrey sued KSK Hospitality Group (Woody’s Diner) for negligence (premises liability) alleging the diner had actual or constructive notice of the wet stairs and failed to remedy or warn.
The trial court granted summary disposition for the diner under MCR 2.116(C)(10), finding Lowrey failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on notice (and alternatively citing open-and-obvious).
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the diner had to present evidence showing what a reasonable inspection would have entailed to prove it lacked constructive notice and thus improperly shifting the burden to the defendant.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave, clarified the summary-disposition burden framework and the proof required for notice in premises-liability cases, reversed the Court of Appeals on notice, and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition as to notice; it vacated the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) burden	Lowrey argued defendant could not obtain summary disposition without proving lack of notice.	Woody’s argued a movant may show the nonmovant's evidence is insufficient and need not affirmatively disprove elements.	Movant need only show plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient or negate an element; defendant was not required to prove lack of notice.
Proof of notice (actual or constructive)	Lowrey argued the diner should have to show what a reasonable inspection would have been to disprove constructive notice.	Woody’s argued Lowrey bore the burden to present evidence of actual or constructive notice; defendant need not prove routine inspection details.	Plaintiff must produce evidence creating a factual question on notice; defendant need not present evidence of reasonable inspection to negate constructive notice.
Sufficiency of Lowrey’s evidence about notice	Lowrey relied on her wet clothing after the fall and general assumptions; no one saw water or reported prior slips.	Woody’s pointed to lack of reports, no testimony placing employees’ knowledge, and repeated prior stair usage without incident.	Lowrey failed to present evidence of actual or constructive notice (timing, character, or duration), so summary disposition was proper.

Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich 358 (party moving under C(10) may negate an element or show nonmovant's evidence is insufficient)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (nonmovant must set forth specific facts showing a genuine factual dispute)
Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (elements of premises-liability duty and breach)
Riddle v. McLouth Steel Prods. Corp., 440 Mich 85 (premises-liability framework requiring breach causing damages)
Carpenter v. Herpolsheimer's Co., 278 Mich 697 (liability when proprietor knew or should have known of condition)
Serinto v. Borman Food Stores, 380 Mich 637 (premises liability when dangerous condition known or existed long enough to be discovered)
Bernardoni v. Saginaw, 499 Mich 470 (summary disposition affirmed where plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient on an essential element)
McCart v. J. Walter Thompson, 437 Mich 109 (nonmovant may not rely on pleadings alone to survive summary disposition)
Goldsmith v. Cody, 351 Mich 380 (summary disposition where plaintiff failed to prove when hazardous condition arose)