Premises liability; Slip & fall on the contents of a spilled item while grocery shopping; Constructive notice; Duty of care; Distinguishing Ritter v Meijer, Inc & Clark v Kmart Corp

Because plaintiff-Easton failed to establish “the spill existed for a sufficient length of time such that any [defendant-Meijer] employee should have known about it,” the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Easton's premises liability claim. Easton argued “that she presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of Meijer’s constructive notice.” The court concluded that her “claim of constructive notice rests on legally irrelevant facts and speculation.” Easton also analogized her case to Ritter and Clark. However, neither “Ritter nor Clark are so factually similar to this case as to compel reversal. Assuming Ritter retains some precedential value, there was no evidence in this case that peaches had been stepped on or that any other customer had encountered the hazard before Easton’s fall. And unlike in Clark, Easton presented no evidence supporting a reasonable inference as to when the hazardous condition arose. Our Supreme Court in Clark expressly distinguished the facts of that case from others that lacked ‘evidence about when the dangerous condition arose.’” The court held that this “case falls in the latter category—a jury could only speculate when the spill from the peach cup occurred. Because Easton failed to present sufficient evidence to create a jury submissible question on constructive notice, the trial court did not err by granting Meijer’s motion for summary disposition.”