PAMELA KING V SHOWCASE CINEMAS-WESTLAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PAMELA KING and RICHARD KING,
UNPUBLISHED
October 5, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V
No. 223992
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-805128-NO
SHOWCASE CINEMAS-WESTLAND,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Markey and Cooper, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal by right from a judgment of no cause of action entered in this premises
liability action. We affirm.
Plaintiff Pamela King slipped and fell because of a slippery substance on the floor of
defendant’s theater. She sought to prove that defendant had actual notice of the condition by
testifying that after she fell, another patron remarked that she had almost fallen on a slippery
substance and had notified the manager. The trial court ruled that the statements were
inadmissible hearsay.
A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found only if an unprejudiced
person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say there is no
justification or excuse for the ruling made. Any error in the admission or
exclusion of evidence does not require reversal unless a substantial right of the
party is affected. [Ellsworth v Hotel Corp of America, 236 Mich App 185, 188;
600 NW2d 129 (1999) (citations omitted).]
“Hearsay evidence is not admissible at trial unless it falls within an established
exception” to the hearsay rule. McCallum v Dep’t of Corrections, 197 Mich App 589, 603; 496
NW2d 361 (1992). Plaintiffs contend that the statement was admissible under MRE 803(1) and
MRE 803(2).
Plaintiffs failed to preserve the issue of admissibility under MRE 803(1) because they
have not cited any case law or other authority in support of their position. Price v Long Realty,
Inc, 199 Mich App 461, 467; 502 NW2d 337 (1993). That aside, the statement did not qualify as
a present sense impression because it did not provide an explanation or description of the
-1-
perceived event. People v Hendrickson, 459 Mich 229, 236 (Kelly, J.), 242 (Boyle, J.); 586
NW2d 906 (1998). The statement was not admissible under MRE 803(2) because it did not
relate to the circumstances of plaintiff’s fall. Berryman v Kmart Corp, 193 Mich App 88, 100101; 483 NW2d 642 (1992).
We affirm.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
