Premises liability; Slip & fall in a restroom; Whether the claim sounded in both ordinary negligence & premises liability; Jahnke v Allen; Notice of the alleged dangerous condition; Whether it was open & obvious; “Special aspects”; Motion for reconsideration

The court concluded that plaintiff’s claim only sounded in premises liability, that he did not create a genuine issue of material fact because he “only brought forth speculation as to what caused him to fall in [defendant-casino’s] restroom, and the danger presented was open and obvious without special aspects.” Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration. His claims sounded “only in premises liability and not ordinary negligence because his injuries were caused by alleged conditions on the land, not defendant’s actions.” The court noted that plaintiff “testified that he suffered injuries to his head and shoulder when slipping on the restroom floor. He testified that defendant’s employees tended to the wound on his head, helped him into a wheelchair, wheeled him to the casino’s medical room, and called him an ambulance.” He did not present “any evidence that the actions of defendant’s employees, apart from the alleged condition on the land, caused or exacerbated any of his injuries.” As such, like in Jahnke, his claim sounded only in premises liability. He also did not create a question of fact as to whether a dangerous condition even existed, because he had “not come forth with any evidence of what he actually slipped on. Plaintiff’s testimony only provided speculation and conjecture that he slipped on a wet and oily floor; his testimony was that the fall may have been caused by soap, water, or condensation from the humid weather, but he was not sure exactly what caused his fall.” While a question of fact existed “as to whether defendant was on notice of a dangerous condition because of the wet floor sign[,]” there was “no question of fact here that the hazard was open and obvious because an average person of ordinary intelligence could have perceived a hazardous condition in the restroom in which plaintiff fell.” The court also found that there were no special aspects to the condition here. “The hazard was not effectively unavoidable” given the availability of other restrooms, and “there was not an unreasonably high risk of severe harm because slipping on the hazard would only result in a short, rather than extended, fall.” Affirmed.