Wrongful-death action; Premises liability; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Duty; Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg Towne Houses Coop, Inc; Possession & control; Derbabian v S & C Snowplowing, Inc; Distinguishing between premises liability & ordinary negligence; Laier v Kitchen; Notice

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed summary disposition of plaintiff-PR’s claims in this wrongful death action. Plaintiff’s decedent died when he fell from the mezzanine level of a warehouse to the warehouse floor. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’ argument that the trial court erred by finding defendant-Sammut was entitled to summary disposition of the premises-liability and individual-liability claims. “Plaintiff failed to establish that Sammut had possession and control of the premises, or that there was a genuine issue of material fact in that regard.” And plaintiff neglected “to cite any individual tortious acts by Sammut to warrant a different conclusion, particularly considering Sammut was uninvolved in the ownership, management, and operations of Sammut Properties or the subject premises.” The court next rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred when it dismissed the negligence claims against Sammut and defendants-Khamo and King Custom. “Because plaintiff failed to plead sufficient allegations indicating ordinary negligence, the trial court did not err when it barred plaintiff from proceeding on that theory.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the trial court erred by finding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Khamo and King Custom had notice of the dangerous condition. Plaintiff “failed to present any evidence of constructive notice, i.e., that the hazard was of such a character, or the hazard existed for a sufficient time, that a reasonable premises possessor would have discovered it.” Ultimately, because plaintiff did not “present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine factual dispute regarding actual or constructive notice, the trial court did not err by granting Khamo and King’s motion for summary disposition on the basis of absence of notice.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by dismissing King Custom as a party due to its purported lack of possession and control of the premises. It found that it was “evident that King Custom maintained neither possession nor control of the premises at the time of decedent’s fall.” And even “assuming that there was a genuine factual dispute regarding whether King Custom maintained possession and control of the subject premises, because [it] lacked notice of the alleged dangerous condition, summary disposition remained proper.” Affirmed.