Bernard Keenan v. O'Reilly Auto Enters., LLC

── Bernard Keenan v. O'Reilly Auto Enters., LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0210n.06 Case No. 25-1543 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED May 11, 2026 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk BERNARD KEENAN, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, ) MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellee. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court in which NALBANDIAN, J., concurred. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 7–12), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. SUTTON, Chief Judge. After Bernard Keenan slipped and fell on some oil in the parking lot of an O’Reilly Auto Parts store, he brought a premises-liability claim against O’Reilly. Because O’Reilly did not have notice of the hazard before Keenan fell, the district court granted summary judgment to O’Reilly. We agree and affirm. I. Keenan drove his truck into an O’Reilly store’s parking lot in August 2023. When he stepped out of his car, he thought that he “might have stepped in some [] oil” in the parking lot. R.34 at 35. Keenan walked into the store and noticed that his foot “slipped a little bit” “on the tile” inside, so he “wiped” his shoe on a rug as he entered. R.34 at 37. Keenan apologized to the No. 25-1543, Keenan v. O’Reilly Auto Enters. two O’Reilly employees working in the store because “I got a mess in your garage.” R.34 at 37. During his deposition, Keenan at times indicated that he also may have mentioned “oil” in the parking lot while inside the store. R.34 at 36–38. But he then clarified that, “to [his] knowledge,” he did not “say anything at that time about oil in the parking lot.” R.34 at 42. Keenan found the car part he was looking for, paid for it, and returned to the parking lot. While stepping onto his truck’s running board, his other foot slipped on the oil in the parking lot. Keenan fell backwards, hitting his back on the pavement. He went back inside the store to tell the O’Reilly employees about the fall. After that, he drove to a hospital where he complained of pain in his tailbone, shoulder, and neck. Keenan sued O’Reilly in Michigan court under a premises-liability theory for failing to keep the parking lot clear of hazards. O’Reilly removed the lawsuit to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The district court noted Keenan’s deposition statement that, “to [his] knowledge,” he did not “say anything at that time about oil in the parking lot” and another similar statement. R.34 at 42. It then concluded that Keenan failed to create a genuine factual dispute about whether O’Reilly had actual or constructive notice of the oil spill before he slipped on it and granted summary judgment to O’Reilly. II. Michigan premises-liability law requires landowners to show invitees, like Keenan, “reasonable care to protect [them] from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land.” Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 1 N.W.3d 44, 52 (Mich. 2023) (quotation omitted). To e