Premises liability; Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs.; Duty owed to an invitee; Hoffner v. Lanctoe; Actual or constructive notice of the condition; Lowery v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc.; Clark v. Kmart Corp.; Speculation & conjecture; Ghaffari v. Turner Constr. Co. (On Remand)

Holding that plaintiff failed to establish a question of fact as to whether defendant had actual or constructive notice of a condition that allegedly caused her slip and fall in its restaurant, the court reversed the order denying defendant summary disposition. It noted that she did not allege or offer evidence that defendant or its employees caused the condition by active negligence. Thus, there was no factual issue as to actual notice. To establish constructive notice, “a plaintiff must show that the landowner should have known about the condition because of its character or the duration of its presence.” Plaintiff offered evidence that defendant had “a rubber mat in its vestibule or foyer area, and” it was slushy due to the snow outside. While she also noted “that there were puddles and caution cones in the area where customers placed their orders[,]” this was not where she fell. After entering the restaurant, she immediately turned “right to proceed to the restroom. According to her testimony, plaintiff did not observe any condition that would have caused her danger because she would have avoided any such condition. Plaintiff expressly did not know what caused her fall. After the fall, she found that her hands and her coat were wet. When asked how long the condition was present, plaintiff admitted that she did not know. Despite failing to observe any wet condition when proceeding to the restroom, plaintiff insisted that the wetness did not come from her boots.” The court concluded that, given the testimony, she did not show “or offer evidence that defendant knew that there was a liquid substance in the area of the restaurant leading to the restroom.” Plaintiff simply assumed she slipped on water that “accumulated from melting snow and ice that customers tracked into the restaurant. However, it was also plausible that plaintiff slipped because her own boots were wet or the condition was created from another customer who walked the same path just minutes” earlier. Remanded for entry of summary disposition for defendant.