McCune v. Meijer, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 91076 |
| Citation | 156 Mich.App. 561,402 N.W.2d 6 |
| Parties | Daniel McCUNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEIJER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Gittleman, Paskel, Tashman & Blumberg, P.C. by Marshall Fogelson, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
Shoup, Hayduk, Dawson, Andrews & Hypnar, P.C. by Mark A. Hypnar, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and MacKENZIE, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the circuit court dated February 18, 1986, granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages for injuries sustained on April 9, 1984 when he slipped on a puddle of oil located in a parking lot owned by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the oil puddle was rather small, but was surrounded by an oil stain 2-1/2 feet in diameter. Plaintiff also indicated that he did not notice the oil spill prior to his fall.
In ruling on the defendant's motion, the trial court noted that in a slip and fall accident defendant is liable to plaintiff, as a business invitee, "for injury resulting from an unsafe condition either caused by the active negligence of himself and his employees or, if otherwise caused, where known to the storekeeper or is of such a character or has existed a sufficient length of time that he should have had knowledge of it." Serinto v. Borman Food Stores, 380 Mich. 637, 640-641, 158 N.W.2d 485 (1968), quoting a headnote paraphrasing the Court's statements as to the law as set forth in Carpenter v. Herpolsheimer's Co., 278 Mich. 697, 271 N.W. 575 (1937). The trial court granted the motion for summary disposition, concluding that plaintiff could not prove that defendant knew or should have known of the oil spill.
Plaintiff attacks the trial court's ruling by proposing the following theory. Noting that the oil stain was much larger than the actual puddle itself, plaintiff concludes that the stain must have resulted from the evaporation of the oil spill. Given the naturally slow rate of evaporation, plaintiff argues that the oil spill must have been of a long-standing duration, and thus defendant should have been aware of its existence.
However, as provided in MCR 2.116(G)(4), when a motion for summary disposition under rule 2.116(C)(10) is made and supported as provided in the rule, "an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading, but must, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Plaintiff's evaporation theory was completely unsupported by any expert testimony, either by deposition or affidavit, and thus amounts to no more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berryman v. K Mart Corp.
...(1937); emphasis deleted.] See also Andrews v. K mart Corp., 181 Mich.App. 666, 670-671, 450 N.W.2d 27 (1989); McCune v. Meijer, Inc., 156 Mich.App. 561, 562, 402 N.W.2d 6 (1986). Neither party questions that defendant owed plaintiffs a duty to provide reasonably safe aisles under the stric......
-
Karbel v. Comerica Bank
...or conditions, but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference. [Id. (citations omitted).] See also McCune v. Meijer, Inc., 156 Mich. App. 561, 563, 402 N.W.2d 6 (1986). The observations of our Supreme Court in Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153, 164-165, 516 N.W.2d 475 (1994), qu......
-
Little v. Howard Johnson Co.
...of the opposing party to come forward with documentary evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists. McCune v. Meijer, Inc., 156 Mich.App. 561, 563, 402 N.W.2d 6 (1986). [183 MICHAPP Joint Venture Finally, plaintiff asserts that an issue of fact exists with respect to whether defen......
-
Libralter Plastics, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies, Docket No. 132745
...speculation to meet their burden of providing evidentiary proof establishing a genuine issue of material fact. McCune v. Meijer, Inc., 156 Mich.App. 561, 563, 402 N.W.2d 6 (1986), citing Szidik v. Podsiadlo, 109 Mich.App. 446, 451, 311 N.W.2d 386 (1981). A conjecture is simply an explanatio......