Where a customer fainted at a service desk in a store, experienced a closed-head injury and died two weeks later, no evidence has been presented for a reasonable jury to find the existence of a dangerous condition and thus summary judgment is warranted on a premises liability claim.
“Betty Jo Copeland fainted at a service desk in a Home Depot store, experienced a closed-head injury, and tragically died two weeks later. … Her daughter, and personal representative of her estate, Macey Fetters, sued Home Depot in Michigan state court alleging premises liability (Count I), ordinary negligence (Count II), gross negligence (Count III), and negligent hiring/supervision/training (Count IV). …
“Fetters argues that Home Depot permitted two dangerous conditions that caused Mrs. Copeland’s fall: a plexiglass barrier and a trash bin. … To prevail on this argument, however, Fetters must ‘establish a question of fact whether there was a dangerous condition.’ … But neither she nor her expert maintain that the plexiglass barrier or trash bin were, in fact, dangerous conditions. …
“… Indeed, she concedes that she has adduced no evidence that ‘any physical condition of the store itself caused [Mrs. Copeland] to fall.’ … So does her expert. …
“Because Fetters presents no evidence for a reasonable jury to find the existence of a dangerous condition, summary judgment is warranted on Fetters’ premises liability claim (Count I). …
“The Court turns next to Fetters’ claim for ordinary negligence. …
“All of this is to say, the cases Fetters cites do not establish that Home Depot had a duty of ‘foreseeable prevention’ that would overcome the default rule against such a duty. …
“Fetters also seeks to create a duty through a ‘voluntary undertaking’ theory. …
“… Fetters fails to establish that [Ken] Meyerhoff ‘assumed a duty to render services to’ Mrs. Copeland when he went to retrieve her a chair. … The record does not show Mrs. Copeland ‘entrusted herself to the control and protection’ of Home Depot by visiting that store to purchase goods, or even entrusted herself to the care of Meyerhoff when she sought his assistance with the transaction. … And even though Mrs. Copeland ‘may have received a benefit’ when Meyerhoff got her a chair, ‘evidence demonstrating that a benefit was conferred is insufficient to establish an undertaking, which connotes the existence of a duty.’ …
“The result: No ‘voluntary undertaking’ duty of care arose because there was, in fact, no undertaking at all.
“Because no duty of care arose, and because no negligence claim can stand without a duty of care, summary judgment is warranted on Fetters’ ordinary negligence claim (Count II). …
“… For the reasons provided above, Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. …”