Premises liability vs ordinary negligence; Licensee duty; Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass’n; Constructive notice of hazard; Applicability of res ipsa loquitur; Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms, LLC; Fuller v Wurzburg Dry Goods Co

The court held that plaintiff’s claim sounded in premises liability, that the defendants owed only the limited duty applicable to licensees, that she failed to show notice, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply. Plaintiff was injured when “a letter ‘A’ fell from the marquee sign” of defendant-theatre while she stood on the adjacent sidewalk. She admitted she was not visiting the theatre, which was closed, but was merely waiting to cross the street. The court explained that her “injuries arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land—a letter that dislodged from the marquee” and she claimed defendants “were negligent in maintaining the marquee.” Under Michigan law, “if the plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, the action sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence.” As a licensee, plaintiff could recover only if defendants failed to warn of hidden dangers they knew or should have known about, but “the law imposes no additional ‘duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the premises safe for the licensee’s visit.’” The court found that she “failed to present any evidence that [they] knew or should have known of the alleged hidden danger” and that her argument “simply because the letter fell” was insufficient. It emphasized that “conjecture and speculation are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary disposition.” Turning to res ipsa loquitur, the court noted that the doctrine “is not an independent cause of action” and that “before this inference of negligence can be drawn, something more must be shown than the mere happening of the accident.” While the marquee was under defendants’ control, “there is no evidence to suggest that their negligence caused the letter to fall[.]” The court cited Fuller for the principle that an inference of negligence cannot rest solely on an unexplained accident. The court deemed plaintiff’s other issues abandoned. Affirmed.