Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc.
Docket No. 153025
Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: In premises liability case, defendant need not prove it lacked notice by showing what an inspection would have revealed. Demonstrating insufficient evidence of an essential element of the claim is enough under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Krystal Lowrey fell down the stairs of Woody’s Diner, breaking her tibia and fibula. She claimed the step was covered with water and sued Woody’s Diner for negligence. The Diner moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), which the trial court granted, holding that Lowrey failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the diner had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition of the stairs.
The Court of Appeals reversed, saying that the diner had to establish that it lacked notice of the hazard, which required evidence showing what a reasonable inspection of the premises would have revealed on the night Lowrey was injured. The diner appealed, and the Supreme Court took up the case to clarify the standard for granting motion for summary disposition and the elements of a premises liability claim.
The Court examined the text of MCR 2.116(C)(10) and held (per curiam) that when a party moves for summary disposition, it can satisfy its burden in two ways: (1) by submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the other party’s claim, or (2) by demonstrating that the other party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of its claim. The Court said the Court of Appeals seemed to ignore the second option. The diner did not have to prove it lacked notice of the hazardous condition; it needed to show only that Lowrey lacked insufficient evidence to establish an element of her claim.
The Court also shot down the “inspection” requirement created by the Court of Appeals. The opinion stated bluntly, “The premises owner is not required to show that a routine or reasonable inspection of the premises would have failed to discover the hazard because it is not required to prove that it lacked actual or constructive notice.” And the Court added that it has “never required a defendant to present evidence of a routine or reasonable inspection under the instant circumstances to prove a premises owner’s lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its property.”
The upshot is that the diner only had to demonstrate that Lowrey’s evidence was insufficient to establish that the diner had actual or constructive knowledge of the slippery step. Once the diner demonstrated this, then the diner was entitled to summary disposition.
Full opinion here.