Casino had No Duty to Show that it Conducted a Reasonable Inspection

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging negligence, premises liability and breach of implied warranty for bodily injuries sustained after falling from an allegedly defective chair while at Defendant’s casino.

The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary disposition as to all three (3) of Plaintiff’s claims holding that the matter was a mere premises liability case and Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had notice that the chair was defective prior to Plaintiff’s fall. 24/7 surveillance video failed to show a defect. Plaintiff testified that the chair appeared normal before sitting down and Defendant had no duty to inspect for hazards pursuant to Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ Inc, 500 Mich. 1 (2016). 

In this soon-to-be-published case, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling and agreed that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing that Defendant had knowledge of the alleged defect prior to the loss. Only after a Plaintiff shows that a premises owner should have had constructive notice does the burden shift to Defendant to negate an essential element of a claim.   

A property owner is only required to present evidence of a reasonable inspection for hazards after it is found that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to its knowledge of the defective/hazardous condition. In this case Plaintiff failed to establish a question of fact making Defendant’s proof of a reasonable inspection for hazards unnecessary.

Click on the link to read the entire case.