Matthew a Stout v. Cindy M Chapman, 355608

Plaintiff Matthew Stout, an experienced handyman, was hired to repair a leak in defendant Cindy Chapman’s basement, which is accessible only from outside via a storm door.
On March 7, 2017, Stout traversed the exterior basement stairs 5–7 times without incident; on his final descent a tread (first or second step) collapsed and he broke his left ankle.
Photographs taken after the collapse showed aged stringers and rusty fasteners; the collapsed treads were later removed but the stringers were preserved and photographed in 2020.
Plaintiff’s expert inspected the preserved stringers and opined they were visibly rotting and that the deterioration occurred over years or decades such that rot at the bottoms would have been visible on reasonable inspection.
Defendant testified she never noticed defects; plaintiff conceded at the hearing that defendant lacked actual knowledge of the defect. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) for lack of actual or constructive notice.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) there was sufficient evidence to create a factual question on constructive notice and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by considering an amended summary-disposition filing that was submitted within 21 days of the hearing in violation of MCR 2.116(G)(1)(a)(i).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant had notice (actual or constructive) of the dangerous stair condition	Stout argued expert testimony that stringers had rotted for years created an inference defendant should have known the stairs were dangerous	Chapman argued neither she nor Stout observed defects before collapse and thus there was no actual or constructive notice	Court held no actual notice and no sufficient evidence of constructive notice; summary disposition affirmed
Whether the trial court abused discretion by considering defendant’s amended motion filed <21 days before hearing in violation of MCR 2.116(G)(1)(a)(i)	Stout contended the late supplement violated the scheduling order and prejudiced him	Chapman noted original motion was timely and the amendment merely added deposition transcripts; any noncompliance was harmless	Court held no shown prejudice and no abuse of discretion in considering the amended motion

Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (2012) (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary-disposition motions)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party for C(10) motions)
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt, LLP, 481 Mich 419 (2008) (definition of a genuine issue of material fact)
Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (2001) (premises possessor’s duty to invitees)
Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc., 500 Mich 1 (2017) (plaintiff must prove actual or constructive notice in premises-liability actions)
Kroll v. Katz, 374 Mich 364 (1965) (mere existence of a defect is insufficient to establish liability)
Clark v. Kmart Corp., 465 Mich 416 (2002) (constructive notice can be established by duration or character of condition)
Cruz v. City of Saginaw, 370 Mich 476 (1963) (examples of constructive notice from long-standing pavement defects)
Baker v. DEC Int’l, 218 Mich App 248 (1996) (party claiming scheduling-order error must show prejudice)