Clark v. Kmart Corp.
634 N.W.2d 347 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability action, a plaintiff may establish a storekeeper's constructive notice of a hazardous condition with circumstantial evidence that creates a reasonable inference that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time for the storekeeper to have discovered it.
Facts:
- On October 8, 1994, at approximately 3:30 A.M., Annie Clark and her husband were shopping at a Super Kmart store.
- As Clark walked through a closed check-out lane, she slipped on several loose grapes scattered on the floor and was injured.
- Clark's husband testified that the grapes were smashed and that there were footprints from large, rubber-soled shoes leading away from them.
- The footprints did not match the shoes Clark was wearing at the time of her fall.
- A Kmart employee testified that the check-out lane where the fall occurred would have been closed to customers no later than 2:30 A.M., approximately one hour before Clark's injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Annie Clark sued Super Kmart in a state trial court for negligence.
- A jury at the trial court returned a verdict in favor of Clark.
- The defendant, Kmart, filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Kmart, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in a two-to-one decision, holding that Clark presented insufficient evidence of constructive notice.
- Clark, as appellant, then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that a hazardous condition was located in a checkout lane that had been closed for approximately one hour create a jury-submissible question on whether the store owner had constructive notice of the condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient period of time for defendant to have known of its existence. A plaintiff can establish constructive notice by presenting evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer that the hazard was present for a sufficient length of time. Here, testimony established that the checkout lane had been closed for about an hour before Clark's fall. From this fact, a jury could reasonably infer that the grapes were likely dropped while the lane was still open and remained on the floor for at least an hour. This one-hour period is a sufficient duration for a jury to conclude that Kmart, in exercising reasonable care, should have discovered and rectified the dangerous condition, distinguishing this case from others where there was no evidence regarding when the hazard arose.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that circumstantial evidence, beyond the mere condition of the hazard itself, can be sufficient to survive a directed verdict on the issue of constructive notice. It establishes that evidence related to a store's operational timeline, such as the closing of a checkout lane, can provide the temporal link necessary for a jury to infer that a hazard existed long enough to impute knowledge to the premises owner. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs who often lack direct proof of when a dangerous condition first appeared, shifting the focus to reasonable inferences drawn from the store's own procedures.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Kmart Corp.