Premises liability; Failure to adequately plead a claim of ordinary negligence; Motion for reconsideration of a motion to amend the complaint; Denial of leave to amend/reconsideration

The court held that “the trial court did not err by concluding that plaintiff’s claim sounded in premises liability, and that [she] failed to adequately plead a claim of ordinary negligence.” Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motions to amend and for reconsideration. She argued “that the trial court erred by holding that plaintiff had failed to adequately plead a claim for ordinary negligence in her original complaint, and accordingly erred by granting defendants’ motions for summary disposition, albeit with an opportunity for plaintiff to file a motion to amend her complaint.” Plaintiff claimed “that her complaint also alleged that defendants owed a ‘separate and distinct’ duty to plaintiff, and highlights for this Court portions of the complaint using the term ‘active negligence.’” It was true that her complaint contained “a few paragraphs that refer to an unspecified ‘separate and distinct duty’ to plaintiff and the ‘active negligence’ of defendants.” But reading the complaint as a whole, it was clear that her allegation was “that she was injured by a condition on the land possessed and controlled by defendants.” The court noted that it “is well-settled that a plaintiff may not transform a premises-liability claim into one of ordinary negligence merely by alleging that the dangerous condition on the defendant’s land was created by the defendant’s action or inaction.” Further, although she vaguely claimed “the existence of some duty owed by defendants to plaintiff that was not dependent on their alleged status as premises owners or possessors, plaintiff never specified that duty.” Plaintiff also argued “that, even if the trial court did not err by granting defendants’ motions for summary disposition, it erred by denying her motion for leave to amend, and by denying reconsideration of that denial.” The court found that her “motion to amend and brief in support did not contain a specific description of the proposed amendment or a clear statement of” her claim; she “merely noted that she had argued in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary disposition that she ‘could allege a claim for ordinary negligence based on Defendants’ conduct in creating a hazard.’” In her brief in support of her motion, she “argued that the amendment would not be futile, and she recited the elements of a negligence claim but did not allege a specific duty owed to plaintiff by defendants.” In fact, she stated that it would be “[p]remature to reach any conclusion whether Plaintiff can and will plead a legally sufficient claim for ordinary negligence.” It appeared that she “expected the trial court to grant her motion to amend without knowing precisely what amendments plaintiff planned on making.” Also, her “motion for reconsideration, although it was accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, did not explain why her motion to amend was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint or at least a clear description of plaintiff’s proposed amendments.” Instead, she faulted “the trial court for not explicitly informing plaintiff that it would be unable to grant her motion if she failed to provide enough information for the trial court to determine if the proposed amendment was justified.” The court found “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of reconsideration.” Affirmed.