After Natalie Orff fell at a restaurant owned by Stonewood Restaurant Group, she brought a premises liability action against the company, alleging that it negligently allowed a dangerous condition to exist on its premises. Stonewood Restaurant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it lacked superior knowledge of any alleged hazard. The trial court granted the motion, and Orff challenges this ruling on appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. We conduct a de novo review of trial court’s grant of summary judgment.1 In so doing, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.2 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the record reveals that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3
Viewed favorably to Orff, the evidence shows that she dined at the restaurant on August 14, 2004. Before being seated, Orff waited with her husband and friends at the hostess station. In order to get to her booth, Orff had to negotiate a single step to reach the elevation of the booths. Orff remained at the restaurant for approximately two hours. As she was leaving the dining area, Orff stopped to talk to friends who were seated in another booth. As Orff turned to leave, she fell from the step, injuring her back. According to Orff, she was unable to see the step because “there was absolutely no depth perception whatsoever.” Upon further questioning, Orff stated that before she fell she had been looking “straight ahead” to where her dinner companions were waiting by the hostess stand. Orff also conceded that if she had looked down, she likely would have seen the step as there was nothing obstructing her view and she knew she had to descend a step to reach the hostess stand.
