Background
Bernard Keenan slipped and fell on oil in the parking lot of an O’Reilly Auto Parts store after entering the building. He sued for premises liability, claiming the store failed to keep the lot clear of hazards. The district court granted summary judgment to O’Reilly, finding no evidence that the store had actual or constructive notice of the oil before the fall.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that Michigan law requires a plaintiff to show the landowner knew or should have known of the danger. Keenan’s testimony regarding whether he warned employees about the oil was internally contradictory. While he initially suggested he mentioned oil, he later clarified under oath that to his knowledge, he never told employees about oil in the parking lot. The court found that such self-contradictory testimony fails to establish a genuine factual dispute. Additionally, Keenan’s apology for a mess inside the store did not provide notice of a hazard in the parking lot.
Self-contradictory testimony, by itself, fails to establish a genuine factual dispute.
Keenan v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, No. 25-1543 (6th Cir. May 11, 2026)
The dissent
In my view the majority opinion fails to construe the record in the light most favorable to eighty-year-old plaintiff Bernard Keenan.
Paul D. Griffin
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that plaintiffs cannot rely on inconsistent deposition statements to survive summary judgment in premises-liability cases. It clarifies that vague apologies for indoor messes do not satisfy the notice requirement for outdoor hazards.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download