Premises liability; Slip & fall on a bathroom floor; Open & obvious danger; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, Admissibility of evidence; Hearsay; Admission by a party opponent; MRE 801(d)(2)(A); Business records; MRE 803(6); Intoxication as a bar to recovery; MCL 600.2955a(1); Whether plaintiff was 50% or more at fault for the accident; Whether plaintiff was impaired; Blood alcohol content (BAC)

The court held that defendant was entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s premises liability claim because of her voluntary intoxication. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she fell and hit her head on a bathroom floor in defendant’s casino. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, finding the slippery spot on the bathroom floor was an open and obvious hazard, and that plaintiff’s intoxication was an absolute bar to recovery. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that (1) a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether defendant caused the condition of the wet floor, thereby imputing notice of that condition to defendant, (2) the trial court erred by finding that the lack of any issue of material fact on causation supported the award of summary disposition, and (3) the trial court’s application of the open and obvious doctrine was fully undermined by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kandil-Elsayed. As such, the award of summary disposition could not stand on any of these bases. However, because the trial court correctly invoked MCL 600.2955a(1) to grant defendant summary disposition, plaintiff could not recover. The court found the trial court did not err by considering a “team member statement” written by defendant’s employee who saw plaintiff fall. The statement was “a trustworthy record and is admissible evidence under the MRE 803(6) business-record exception to the hearsay rule.” The court rejected her claim that her premises liability claim was not barred by the evidence of her alcohol use on the evening of her fall. Plaintiff “did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of her intoxication on the evening of her fall.” In addition, there was “no question of material fact that, as a result of her intoxication, plaintiff was at least 50% at fault for her fall.” Her BAC “was 0.185, which qualified her as ‘super drunk’ under Michigan law.” She had also “taken painkillers and was wearing high-heeled shoes when she fell.” Affirmed.