By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A split Michigan Supreme Court in an opinion last Thursday reversed a Court of Appeals decision granting summary judgment to a subcontractor in a worker negligence case, with the majority ruling questions of fact remained while conservative justices said the common work area doctrine didn't actually apply in the case.
Shareef El-Jamaly v. Kirco Manix Construction (MSC Docket Nos. 164902-4) involves a plaintiff who was electrocuted on a job site where Kirco was the general contractor and DTE Energy owned the power line.
The plaintiff sought a negligence claim under the "common work area" doctrine against Kirco and claimed DTE was negligent because it was aware of the danger of the power line but failed to remediate it.
A Court of Appeals panel granted Kirco and DTE summary disposition. In an opinion from Justice Elizabeth Welch, joined by Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, the Supreme Court reversed.
The majority ruled while the Court of Appeals properly defined the risk of harm, it failed to recognize a genuine issue of fact remained where plaintiff could still satisfy the common work area doctrine in the claim against Kirco. These unresolved questions were an issue best left to the jury to decide, the majority ruled.
In the claim against DTE, the Court of Appeals erred by definitively holding that DTE did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals used the wrong standard to determine if the risk of harm was foreseeable, the majority ruled.
Rather, the court needed to determine whether some injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable or to be anticipated. The majority said a DTE representative acknowledged that line protection was needed, showing he was aware of the danger the line presented.
Justice Elizabeth Clement joined the DTE part of the opinion.
Justice Brian Zahra and Justice David Viviano dissented to the entire majority opinion, with Clement joining the dissent in the common work area doctrine piece.
The conservative justices disagreed that the common work area doctrine was applicable in the case and also disagreed that there were genuine issues of material fact on elements of the doctrine.
Gongwer News Service
A split Michigan Supreme Court in an opinion last Thursday reversed a Court of Appeals decision granting summary judgment to a subcontractor in a worker negligence case, with the majority ruling questions of fact remained while conservative justices said the common work area doctrine didn't actually apply in the case.
Shareef El-Jamaly v. Kirco Manix Construction (MSC Docket Nos. 164902-4) involves a plaintiff who was electrocuted on a job site where Kirco was the general contractor and DTE Energy owned the power line.
The plaintiff sought a negligence claim under the "common work area" doctrine against Kirco and claimed DTE was negligent because it was aware of the danger of the power line but failed to remediate it.
A Court of Appeals panel granted Kirco and DTE summary disposition. In an opinion from Justice Elizabeth Welch, joined by Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, the Supreme Court reversed.
The majority ruled while the Court of Appeals properly defined the risk of harm, it failed to recognize a genuine issue of fact remained where plaintiff could still satisfy the common work area doctrine in the claim against Kirco. These unresolved questions were an issue best left to the jury to decide, the majority ruled.
In the claim against DTE, the Court of Appeals erred by definitively holding that DTE did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals used the wrong standard to determine if the risk of harm was foreseeable, the majority ruled.
Rather, the court needed to determine whether some injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable or to be anticipated. The majority said a DTE representative acknowledged that line protection was needed, showing he was aware of the danger the line presented.
Justice Elizabeth Clement joined the DTE part of the opinion.
Justice Brian Zahra and Justice David Viviano dissented to the entire majority opinion, with Clement joining the dissent in the common work area doctrine piece.
The conservative justices disagreed that the common work area doctrine was applicable in the case and also disagreed that there were genuine issues of material fact on elements of the doctrine.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
