Slip & fall on a step; Premises liability; Negligence; Finazzo v. Fire Equip. Co.; Distinction between claims arising from ordinary negligence & claims based on a condition of the land; Pugno v. Blue Harvest Farms LLC; Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs.; Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash; Invitee status; James v. Alberts; Duty to protect an invitee; Riddle v. McLouth Steel Prods. Corp.; Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc.; Ahola v. Genesee Christian Sch. (Unpub.); Ragnoli v. North Oakland-N. Macomb Imaging, Inc. (Unpub.)

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding defendant-tavern owner did not cause or have notice of a defective condition on its premises that caused plaintiff-patron to slip and fall. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell on an unilluminated step on defendant’s patio. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, finding there was no evidence that defendant caused or was aware of the lighting condition that caused the fall. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred in finding defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the patio because defendant necessarily created it. It agreed with the trial court that, given “plaintiff’s injury occurred almost simultaneously with the lights on the patio going out, there was no evidence that defendant knew or had reason to know of the defective condition.” Plaintiff herself “testified that she did not know what caused the lights to go out, and while there was some testimony that a light switch was located inside the premises behind the bar, there was no testimony to suggest that the lights were knowingly switched off.” Although she provided “evidence from affiants who suggested that they overheard frequent complaints to defendant about the lighting conditions on the patio, . . . [she] explicitly testified that she was aware and could see the step that caused her to fall until the lights went out while she was walking.” As to her claim that the trial court erred by indicating she failed to actually plead that defendant caused the condition in her complaint, there were no specific allegations in her complaint “as to how defendant caused the lighting to go out, or as to why defendant should have immediately been aware of the lighting when it did go out.” Unlike Ahola, “this case involves a temporal element that suggests that defendant was unlikely to know of the lighting condition on the patio.” In addition, plaintiff overlooked the fact Ragnoli was reversed, and did not address how the case was helpful to her given this. Affirmed.