Pete v. Iron County

• Decision Date: 29 January 1992
• Docket Number: Docket No. 130544
• Citation: 192 Mich.App. 687,481 N.W.2d 731
• Parties: Hazel George PETE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 731

481 N.W.2d 731

192 Mich.App. 687

Hazel George PETE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 130544.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 8, 1991, at Houghton.

Decided Nov. 14, 1991.

Approved for Publication Jan. 29, 1992, at 9:15 a.m.

Released for Publication April 13, 1992.

Wisti & Jaaskelainen, P.C. by David M. Gemignani and Daniel J. Wisti, Hancock, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.C. by Catherine D. Jasinski, Traverse City, for defendant-appellee.

Before J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and GRIBBS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this negligence action, plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). Defendant cross appeals, alleging that the trial court erred in holding that an accumulation of water on the courthouse stairs could constitute a defect or dangerous condition of the building to fit within the public building exception to governmental immunity. M.C.L. Sec. 691.1406; M.S.A. Sec. 3.996(106). We affirm.

This action arose out of an incident that occurred on December 1, 1987. On that date, plaintiff was descending stairs inside the Iron County Courthouse, a building owned and maintained by defendant, when, for some reason, she slipped and fell down several stairs and suffered injury.

Plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in finding that she did not raise genuine issues of material fact that the proximate cause of her injuries was a defect in the building and that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect in the building.

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. Leitch v. Switchenko, 169 Mich.App. 761, 765, 426 N.W.2d 804 (1988). When ruling on a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court must consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, as well as other documentary evidence, and grant the motion only when the court is satisfied that it is impossible for the claim to be supported at trial because of some deficiency that cannot be overcome. Schippers v. SPX Corp., 186 Mich.App. 595, 596, 465 N.W.2d 34 (1990). Courts are liberal in finding that a genuine issue exists, giving all benefits of doubt and resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Slaughter v. Smith, 167 Mich.App. 400, 403, 421 N.W.2d 702 (1988). The party opposing summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) has the burden of showing that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Pantely v. Garris, Garris & Garris, PC, 180 Mich.App. 768, 773, 447 N.W.2d 864 (1989).

On the issue of proximate cause, plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she did not know what caused her to slip on the courthouse stairs. Plaintiff testified that water on the stairs might have caused her fall, she could have fallen because of the type of shoes she was wearing, or the fall could have been caused by the material the stairs were made of. Plaintiff's expert testified during deposition that he did not know what caused plaintiff's fall, but opined that she may have "misstepped." Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her accident on the courthouse stairs and any negligence on the part of defendant. Where a plaintiff fails to establish such a link, summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is proper. Siewert v. Sears, Roebuck & Co, 177 Mich.App. 221, 223, 441 N.W.2d 9 (1989).

Further, on the issue of actual or constructive notice, plaintiff failed to establish facts from which it could be inferred that defendant had...