Curtis v. Target Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-11199 |
| Parties | Denice Curtis, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation and Kellermeyer Building Services, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Sean F. Cox
In this premises liability and negligence case, which was removed from state court, Plaintiff Denice Curtis alleges that she slipped and fell inside one of Target Corporation's retail stores. Defendant Kellermeyer Building Services, LLC was contractually bound to perform janitorial services at that store. Following the close of discovery, Defendants filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's negligence claims fail because neither Defendant breached any duty owed to Plaintiff. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff cannot prove the cause of her fall beyond mere speculation. Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff's premises liability claims fail because neither Defendant caused the hazard nor had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard that caused Plaintiff's fall.
First, this Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's negligence count against Defendant Target Corporation because, under the facts presented here, Plaintiff cannot pursue both negligence and premises liability causes of action against Target. This Court also dismisses with prejudicePlaintiff's premises liability count against Defendant Kellermeyer Building Services because, as a matter of law, it cannot be held liable under a premises liability theory in this case.
Finally, for the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES Defendants' motion as to Plaintiff's premises liability claim against Target Corporation, and DENIES Defendants' motion as to Plaintiff's negligence claim against Kellermeyer Building Services, LLC.
Plaintiff Denice Curtis ("Plaintiff") alleges that she sustained physical injuries when she slipped and fell inside one of Target Corporation's stores ("Target") in Dearborn, Michigan on January 7, 2011. Plaintiff filed suit against Target on January 19, 2012, alleging two claims sounding in ordinary negligence and premises liability.
Target removed the matter to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Thereafter, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to name Target's janitorial service provider, Kellermeyer Building Services, LLC ("KBS"), as an additional Defendant. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts both ordinary negligence and premises liability claims against both Target and KBS.
On May 10, 2013, after the close of discovery, Defendants filed this joint Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Plaintiff testified that on January 7, 2011 at about 9:50 a.m., she and her son Deontae Curtis went to the Target store in Dearborn, Michigan to purchase some DVDs. As she entered the store, Plaintiff saw no "wet floor" signs and did not notice any water on the floor:
.
As Plaintiff and her son approached the area between the registers and the children's clothing, Plaintiff's foot slipped forward and she fell to the ground. (Pl.'s Dep. at 40). Plaintiff testified that she did not see any Target employees near her when she fell. (Pl.'s Dep. at 49). Plaintiff's testimony is corroborated by Target surveillance video. .
Both before and after she fell, Plaintiff was unable to see the substance on the ground that caused her to fall. However, Plaintiff testified that as she touched the ground in an attempt to push herself back up, the floor felt slippery and she could feel a gluey, pasty substance on her hands:
(Pl.'s Dep. at 46, 47-48). When Plaintiff stood up, she could see "at a distance" that a cleaning crew was buffing the floor down the aisle in which she fell:
(Pl.'s Dep. at 45-46). The incident report prepared by a Target employee after Plaintiff's fall also states that a "cleaning crew was using buffer in the area." . Furthermore, "[a]fter [Plaintiff] fell the cleaning crew grabbed a sign that said 'Caution' to put up." (Defs.' Mo. at Ex. B). Plaintiff's deposition testimony echoes the facts contained in the Incident Report:
Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of her fall at Target, she suffered serious injuries to her wrist, shoulder, neck, back, and ankle. (Pl.'s Resp. at 3).
Because this Court sits in diversity, the substantive law of Michigan governs the claims in this case. See, e.g., Schare v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2012 WL 2031958 at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
In Michigan, premises liability flows from the ownership, possession, or control of the land at issue. Laier v. Kitchen, 266 Mich. App. 482, 493 (2005). To succeed in a premises liability action, a plaintiff must prove: 1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty; 2) that the defendant breached that duty; 3) that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's harm, and 4) that the plaintiff suffered damages. Hunley v. DuPont Automotive, 341 F.3d 491, 496 (6th Cir. 2003).
Although premises liability and negligence claims share the same legal elements, they are distinguishable based on the pleadings. If the plaintiff alleges harm caused solely by a condition ofthe land, the claim falls exclusively under premises liability. James v. Alberts, 626 N.W.2d 158, 162 (Mich. 2001); Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 486 Mich. 913, 914 (2010). On the other hand, if the plaintiff alleges harm caused by the conduct of a landowner unrelated to the land, the action is more properly characterized as ordinary negligence. Kessler v. Visteon, 448 F.3d 326, 331 (6th Cir. 2006)("it is clear that ordinary negligence and premises liability describe two distinct theories of negligence liability: one flows from actions, the other from possession."); see also Gatrall v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC, 2011 WL 4434809 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
The distinction between premises liability and negligence actions becomes important in determining the proper duty. For the purposes of premises liability, the landowner's duty depends on the status of the injured party. Taylor v. Laban, 241 Mich.App. 449, 425, 616 N.W.2d 229 (2000), citing Doran v. Combs, 135 Mich.App. 492, 495, 354 N.W.2d 804 (1984). Michigan utilizes three categories: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Kessler, 448 F.3d at 336-37. An invitee is an individual who enters the land of another for a commercial purpose. Cote v. Lowe's Home Ctr., Inc., 896 F.Supp.2d 637, 644 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
The parties agree that Plaintiff was an invitee on Target's premises on the day she fell. A storekeeper, like Target, has a duty to keep his or her premises reasonably safe for customers' use. Serinto v. Borman Food Stores, 380 Mich. 637, 640-41 (1968). The storekeeper-landowner must also warn the invitee of any known dangers existing on the premises. James, 626 N.W.2d at 162-63, citing Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 596-597 (2000).
To prevail against a storekeeper for negligent premises maintenance or failure to warn, a plaintiff must show that the storekeeper either caused the dangerous condition or had actual or...
To continue reading
Request your trial