Premises liability; Kennedy v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.; Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc.; Reardon v. Department of Mental Health; Hickey v. Zezulka; Wrongful-death; Ballard v. Southwest Detroit Hosp.; Hawkins v. Regional Med. Labs, PC; Fox v. Roethlisberger; Personal representative (PR)

The court held that, regardless of whether the door actually was dangerous or actually did malfunction, the evidence failed to show that defendant was on notice of any such possible defect or danger. Thus, the trial court correctly granted defendant summary disposition on plaintiff-PR’s premises liability claim. Also, as plaintiff had not articulated any alternative theory of liability, plaintiff necessarily could not maintain a wrongful death claim. The decedent “was struck by an automatic sliding door while exiting defendant’s healthcare facility.” She broke her hip, underwent surgery, and received a laceration to her head. The decedent, who was 88 years of age, died the next year due to cardiorespiratory arrest resulting from congestive heart failure. The evidence established “a question of fact whether defendant was aware that the sensor equipment installed on its door was no longer state-of-the-art, and that newer sensors had better safety features.” However, the evidence did “not establish any question of fact whether defendant was, or should have been, aware that the door was actually defective or dangerous.” Thus, the court declined “to hold that simple noncompliance with a ‘best practices’ guideline or a mere recommendation from a standards-promulgation organization such as ANSI is sufficient to communicate the presence of a defect or danger.” Plaintiff relied “on a single, vague, and out-of-context statement by one of the service technicians for the proposition that defendant knew the door was dangerous. The technician explained that his employer required him to sell upgrades, so those upgrades were almost always recommended, but the upgrades were seldom purchased due to their costs. The technician also explained that part of his service involved performing tests on the doors, and if the door was actually unsafe, he was required to shut the door down and turn it off completely.” Also, he “agreed that a door was not out of compliance just because there was a recommended upgrade.” Therefore, the only evidence defendant was on notice that the doors might be unsafe was “a vague assertion that defendant was informed that the doors could have been made safer. This in and of itself did nothing to indicate to defendant that the door was a dangerous condition.” The sensors continue to be widely used. Several worksheets explicitly provided “that the door was working properly. Moreover,” the worksheet of a technician called out to examine the door after the accident provided that it “was working properly and ‘met code.’” Also, “plaintiff’s expert appeared to agree that the newer sensor technology did not necessarily make the older sensor technology defective or dangerous.” Affirmed.