PEGGY CUSTER V GORDON FOOD SERV INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEGGY CUSTER,
UNPUBLISHED
November 9, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 225701
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-014322-NO
GORDON FOOD SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Wilder and Schmucker*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this premises liability action. We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo.
Gibson v Neelis, 227 Mich App 187, 189; 575 NW2d 313 (1997). A motion brought under MCR
2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court must
consider not only the pleadings, but also depositions, affidavits, admissions and other
documentary evidence, MCR 2.116(G)(5), and must give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to
the nonmoving party, being liberal in finding a genuine issue of material fact. Summary
disposition is appropriate only if the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence
establishing the existence of a material factual dispute. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich
446, 455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
A business owner is liable to invitees for injuries resulting from an unsafe condition on
his premises. Berryman v Kmart Corp, 193 Mich App 88, 92; 483 NW2d 642 (1992). A
business owner is liable to invitees for injuries incurred on his premises where the injury results
from an unsafe condition caused by the active negligence of the owner or his employees. If the
unsafe condition results from other causes, the shop owner is liable if the condition is known to
him “or is of such a character or has existed a sufficient length of time that he should have
knowledge of it.” Id., quoting Serinto v Borman Food Stores, 380 Mich 637, 640-641; 158
NW2d 485 (1968).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Plaintiff slipped on a puddle of water on defendant’s floor. The puddle resulted when
snow plaintiff had tracked into the store melted. Neither defendant nor its employees created
that condition and there was no evidence that defendant had actual notice of its existence. In
addition, plaintiff’s testimony clearly established that the melt water had only been on the floor
for a few moments. Because the condition had not existed for a considerable time, defendant
could not be charged with constructive notice. Whitmore v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 89 Mich App
3, 8; 279 NW2d 318 (1979). Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Chad C. Schmucker
-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.
