Opinion
A20-0267
12-14-2020
Virginia Staub, as trustee and next-of-kin of Joyce Esther Weeks, decedent, Appellant, v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, Respondent, James Lown, Respondent.
Jeremy L. Brantingham, Andrew Irlbeck, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Jerome D. Feriancek, Paige V. Orcutt, Trial Group North, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC) Michael J. Tomsche, Kelly P. Magnus, Tomsche, Sonnesyn & Tomsche, P.A., Golden Valley, Minnesota (for respondent James Lown)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018). Affirmed
Kirk, Judge St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69HI-CV-18-637 Jeremy L. Brantingham, Andrew Irlbeck, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Jerome D. Feriancek, Paige V. Orcutt, Trial Group North, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC) Michael J. Tomsche, Kelly P. Magnus, Tomsche, Sonnesyn & Tomsche, P.A., Golden Valley, Minnesota (for respondent James Lown) Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KIRK, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for respondents because there are genuine issues of material fact. We affirm.
FACTS
The facts are mostly undisputed. Appellant Virginia Staub brought this wrongful-death claim after her mother, Joyce Weeks, died from the injuries she sustained falling down outdoor cement stairs at Myrtle Lake Resort (the resort) in Orr. The record consists of three witness depositions with accompanying affidavits, two expert reports, and interrogatory answers. Respondent Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, of which respondent James Lown is the sole member, owns the resort. Joyce began managing the resort with her husband, Samuel Weeks, in 2014. Joyce fell down the stairs on July 10, 2016.
Samuel and Joyce began the morning of July 10, 2016, by drinking coffee in the resort's main lodge with their friend George Brown and his wife. Brown was at the resort that week to help repair the plumbing and build a fish shack. As the group started to disband, Samuel stated that Joyce "chased me in the house because I needed to do my insulin and my breakfast." Joyce then took a laundry basket and went to clean one of the cabins. Samuel "heard a holler" while he was eating breakfast and taking his medicine. He went outside and saw the laundry basket on the top of the stairs and Joyce collapsed at the bottom. Joyce did not have a heartbeat, and Samuel gave her CPR to get her breath back, but she could not breathe on her own. An ambulance brought Joyce to a hospital in Cook, and she was then airlifted to Duluth. Joyce eventually regained consciousness, but she was on a "breathing machine" and could not talk. "[A]ll she could do is look" and "[m]outh things out." After a week, the family decided to take her off of life support.
Samuel did not see Joyce fall down the stairs and does not know if she had begun using the stairs when she fell. The outdoor stairs are cement with steps going down two opposite sides. One side is longer and points to the lake, while the other has only four steps. Samuel stated that he and his wife almost always used the short side of the stairs because of the condition of the stairs. Joyce fell down the long side of the stairs. Samuel also noted that Joyce had knee replacement surgery six to eight months before her fall.
In Brown's deposition, he stated that he learned about the incident when he saw his friend David Wilcox running towards the main cabin. Wilcox was previously fishing on the dock by himself. Wilcox yelled to Brown that Joyce fell, and Brown rushed to stop Joyce from rolling further down the hill. Brown did not see Joyce fall, and he does not know if she was descending the steps at the time of the fall. He noted that his wife helped Joyce with her duties while they were at the resort, and that Joyce would typically leave the laundry on the top of the stairs for his wife to bring down.
Wilcox stated during his deposition that he was fishing off the dock at the time of the incident. Right before the incident, he heard a door close and turned around to see Joyce set a basket of laundry down on the stair landing. About 30 seconds later, he heard the sound of keys drop, but he did not turn around because he had a fish on the line. Another 30 seconds later, he heard a "whoo" and turned around to see Joyce rolling down the stairs. He did not see her start to fall.
Staub had Great Northern Environmental Solutions, LLC complete an expert report. The report found that the "concrete steps were beyond practical repair," and that they could have been removed and replaced with all-weather wood steps with a guard rail for less than $800. The report concluded:
It is this building official's opinion that the owner of the resort was negligent in maintaining the exterior stairs and landing providing access to the main level of the building. My inspection clearly revealed deteriorated conditions, specifically spalling, cracking and inconsistent dimensions for the stair risers and treads. Additionally the guard rail and hand rail were not of the proper height and spacing. Clearly the building code was not followed nor was the structure kept in a safe condition.
Respondents hired Scalzo Architects Ltd., to compile a report. That report found that the stairs were original to the building, which was built in 1960 or 1961, but that the wood railing had been replaced. It found, "In general, the stair is in serviceable condition and not in disrepair." The report also notes that "the stair is not significantly out of compliance based on the current edition of the residential building code." Finally, the report concluded that the stairs represent the method of the time it was constructed, and that it remains sturdy despite years of weathering. "The observed deterioration does not create an unsafe condition as the elements of the stair do not crumble or break during use. The configuration of the concrete stair including the openings of the railing and weathered condition are open and obvious to observation by the user."
Respondents moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted for both respondents. The district court concluded, "No one knows whether [Joyce] fell from the landing, or whether she fell as she was going down the stairs. In order to find that defendant's negligence led to [Joyce's] death, a jury would have to engage in speculation." This appeal followed.
DECISION
Staub argues that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because what caused Joyce's fall is a question of material fact since reasonable persons might draw different conclusions based on the evidence. Summary judgment is "appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370, 374 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). Appellate courts review the district court's decision de novo and "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties." Fenrich v. The Blake Sch., 920 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).
Summary judgment is appropriate in negligence actions "when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four essential elements of the claim: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury." Gradjelick v. Hance, 646 N.W.2d 225, 230 (Minn. 2002). "[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented." Warren, 926 N.W.2d at 375 (quotation omitted).
"[P]roximate cause is a question of fact for the jury; however, where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion, proximate cause is a question of law." Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Minn. 1995). For a party's negligence to qualify as the proximate cause, "the act must be one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was likely to result in injury to others though he could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen." Anderson v. Christopherson, 816 N.W.2d 626, 631 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). "There must also be a showing that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury." Lubbers, 539 N.W.2d at 401 (quotation omitted). "Although a prima facie case may be established by circumstantial evidence, it cannot be founded upon speculation and conjecture about causation." Smith v. Runk, 425 N.W.2d 299, 301 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming district court's directed verdict based on causation).
The district court reasoned, "No one observed what caused [Joyce] to fall down the stairs. No one saw [Joyce] take any steps down the stairs." It concluded, "There are no facts upon which a jury could determine that the negligence of defendant Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, caused [Joyce] to fall down the stairs."
Staub argues that respondents did not provide any evidence that the stairs were not the proximate cause of the injury. But the burden is on the plaintiff to provide a prima facie showing on the four negligence elements to survive summary judgment. Gradjelick, 646 N.W.2d at 230. Next, Staub argues that she presented sufficient facts because of the report about the condition of the stairs and Samuel's statements in his deposition that he repeatedly asked Lown to replace the stairs. Staub states, "The problems with the stairs are the very type of problems that would cause someone to fall." This is not enough to establish a prima facie case for proximate cause. No one saw Joyce fall. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Staub, Joyce was standing on the top landing between a set of cement stairs in poor condition. She set down her basket of laundry. She then exclaimed, and a witness saw her mid-fall. One can only speculate as to what caused Joyce to fall, and mere speculation is not enough. See Runk, 425 N.W.2d at 301.
While we can speculate that the degraded condition of the stairs, which is obvious from the photographs, may have been the most likely reason for the fall, there are many other ways this could have happened—she could have been startled by an owl or a pesky mouse, she could have tripped over the laundry basket, etc. Unfortunately, because she is no longer with us, we will never know.
Staub also argues that causation is moot because respondents are strictly liable for violating the building code. But negligence per se addresses the duty and breach elements of negligence, and the plaintiff still needs to show that the negligence was the proximate cause of their injury. See Gradjelick, 646 N.W.2d at 232 (listing the fourth element of negligence per se as "the violation was the proximate cause of the injury or damage").
The facts of this case are tragic. But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Staub, she only offers speculation as to the proximate cause of Joyce's injury. The district court correctly granted summary judgment for respondents.
Because we affirm summary judgment on liability, we need not reach Staub's argument that the district court erred by determining that there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil to hold Lown personally liable. See Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul, 817 N.W.2d 150, 163 (Minn. 2012) ("[W]e may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds.").
Affirmed.