Slip & fall action; Premises liability; Negligence; Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg Towne Houses Coop, Inc; Duty to an invitee; Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Notice; Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc; Constructive notice; Distinguishing Clark v Kmart Corp

The court held that the trial court properly granted defendant-gas station summary disposition of plaintiff’s slip and fall claim because he failed to provide any evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of its bathroom floor. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries he suffered when he slipped and fell in defendant’s bathroom. He claimed he slipped on soap that had leaked out of a dispenser. The trial court found plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had notice of the hazardous condition. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion on the basis that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine question of material fact as to defendant’s notice of the hazardous condition. “Aside from pure speculation as to how the soap dispenser may have been damaged or leaked—accepting plaintiff’s testimony as true that it was leaking—plaintiff has not provided evidence of constructive notice.” It noted that he “did not present any evidence that other customers complained that the floor in the men’s bathroom was slippery or that the soap dispenser was broken before he fell.” Further, although plaintiff contended that “the mess in the bathroom earlier in the evening should have put defendant on notice that there could be additional damage to the bathroom, a defendant in a premises liability action is not required ‘to present evidence of a routine or reasonable inspection . . . to prove a . . . lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its property.’” Finally, the court distinguished this case from Clark “because plaintiff did not provide any evidence to support an inference that soap, or any other slippery substance, had been on the bathroom floor for a significant amount of time such that defendant should have known of its existence.” Affirmed.