Trip & fall on stairs; Premises liability; Duty owed to an invitee; Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship (Stitt I); Hoffner v. Lanctoe; Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Svcs.; Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc.; Open & obvious danger; Eason v. Coggins Mem’l Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; Knight v. Gulf & W. Props., Inc.; Constructive notice

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s premises liability claim. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell on a set of stairs as she left defendant’s office building. Defendant moved for summary disposition asserting that the open and obvious doctrine precluded premises liability because plaintiff had not established that the stairs were anything other than ordinary deck stairs and that the minor flaws that existed were visible. The trial court rejected its argument, reasoning that plaintiff had provided “perhaps weak or meager” circumstantial evidence that her fall was caused by the condition depicted in the photograph showing the sloped front board. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s open and obvious danger argument. “Even presuming that an average person of ordinary intelligence would readily observe that the stairs had not been expertly constructed, that does not necessarily establish that such a person should casually observe any specific defect.” However, it found the evidence was not sufficient to impute constructive notice upon defendant. “Presuming there was, indeed, a defect in the steps, the evidence in the record nevertheless does not establish that it had existed for long enough or was of such a character that defendant should, by exercising reasonable care, have discovered it.” Reversed and remanded.