Premises liability; Breach of duty to invitee; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Conjecture & speculation; Skinner v Square D Co; “Ordinary steps” risk principles; Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc

The court held that summary disposition was proper because plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that defendants breached the duty owed to an invitee. Plaintiff fell on stairs at a wedding venue. She alleged a gap between stair-tread boards caught the heel of her shoe, causing a fall and serious injury. The trial court granted summary disposition on the premises-liability claim. On appeal, the court held that the relevant negligence elements applied and the dispositive question was breach. It reiterated that “‘if the evidence presented to a court concerning breach generates no questions of fact, the issue can be decided by the judge as a matter of law.’” The court concluded plaintiff did not meet her burden because she offered only the existence and size of the gap and the number of weddings hosted, but no evidence showing the gap posed an unreasonable risk. The court noted a party must present more than conjecture and speculation, and that litigants cannot submit a record that would allow the jury “‘to do nothing more than guess.’” The court held that the stairs were not shown to be unreasonably dangerous on this record, relying on the principle that “ordinary steps do not pose an unreasonable risk of harm simply because they are not ‘foolproof.’” It also noted that plaintiff conceded the stairs “‘appeared to be safe and okay to go down[.]’” Because the record lacked evidence from which a factfinder could conclude the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm attributable to defendants’ breach, summary disposition was appropriate. Affirmed.