Trip & fall on a step; Premises liability; Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs; Premises possessor’s duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land; Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc; Open & obvious danger; Hoffner v Lanctoe; Principle that stairs are generally discoverable on casual inspection; Weakley v Dearborn Hts; Effect of poor lighting; Singerman v Municipal Serv Bureau, Inc; Distinguishing Knight v Gulf & W Props, Inc, Abke v Vandenberg, & Blackwell v Franchi

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-coffee shop summary disposition of plaintiff’s premises liability claim. Plaintiff tripped and fell on a three-inch step that separated the sidewalk from a red-tiled piazza at the front of the shop. She claimed that “the step was not observable because there was no paint or other warning to indicate the existence of the elevated surface upon entering the shop[,]” and that this hidden danger caused her fall. The court rejected her argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant because there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the hazardous condition was open and obvious upon casual inspection. “[T]he lighting in this case is dissimilar to the lighting in Knight, Abke, and Blackwell. Indeed, although testimony supports that it was dark outside and that the area was ‘poorly lit,’ evidence nonetheless supports that there was lighting on the street and inside defendant’s shop, as well as colored lights decorating defendant’s building and the surrounding buildings.” Although plaintiff argued that “individuals who were crowded on the sidewalk cast shadows that obscured the step, evidence also supports that individuals were standing on the piazza before plaintiff fell. This elevation would have alerted a reasonably prudent person of the step.” Further, the dangers in Knight, Abke, and Blackwell were unexpected. The plaintiffs in those cases “received no warnings of the dangers and had no reason to suspect the dangers.” Here, though, “a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have anticipated a step in front of a store.” In addition, testimony supported that “the red-tiled flooring was distinguishable from the sidewalk, and photographs of the scene support this testimony. Although the three-inch step that separated the sidewalk from the red-tiled piazza at the front of defendant’s shop was consistent in color with the sidewalk, steps are a common occurrence that should reasonably be foreseen, and a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have foreseen the danger of potentially tripping on a step in front of a store.” Finally, unlike the “unique conditions addressed in Knight, Abke, and Blackwell, a reasonable person can expect to encounter a step at the threshold of a storefront. Because the condition is not unusual and is to be anticipated by a reasonable person, the allegedly poor lighting had no impact on whether the step was open and obvious.” Affirmed.