CAROLYN WATSON V ST JOHN HOSPITAL

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CAROLYN WATSON, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 1998 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 201742 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 96-615318 NO ST. JOHN HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee. Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and McDonald and T. G. Hicks*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the summary dismissal of her premises liability action pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Viewing the documentation supplied by the parties in support of, and in opposition to, the motion for summary disposition in a light most favorable to plaintiff, Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996), there is no evidence of how the lettuce got on the stairwell floor or of defendant’s actual knowledge of the presence of the lettuce on the floor before plaintiff’s fall. Serinto v Borman Food Stores, 380 Mich 637, 640-641; 158 NW2d 485 (1968); Suci v Mirsky, 61 Mich App 398, 401-403; 232 NW2d 415 (1975). Moreover, neither party presented documentation from which it can be reasonably inferred that the lettuce was dropped by an employee of defendant or that the lettuce had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time that defendant should have had actual knowledge of it. Suci, supra. The documentation that the parties supplied does not remove either of the following from the realm of conjecture: (1) whether defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the lettuce, and (2) whether an employee or agent of defendant was responsible for dropping the lettuce. Therefore, plaintiff failed to establish that there was a question of material fact regarding defendant’s alleged breach of duty. Defendant is thus entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Quinto, supra, 362-363; Berryman v K-mart Corp, 193 Mich App 88, 92; 483 NW2d 642 (1992). * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ Affirmed. /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ Gary R. McDonald /s/ Timothy G. Hicks -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.