Alderman v. JC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC
Opinion
780 N.W.2d 840 (2010)
Randy ALDERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J.C. DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 140051. COA No. 285744.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
April 30, 2010.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REINSTATE the Oakland Circuit Court's May 16, 2008 order granting summary disposition. The Court of Appeals erred by holding that the common-work-area doctrine applies to this case. The risk of injury at issue here was the risk of electrocution from a subcontractor's crane coming into contact with power lines above the construction site. The only employees exposed to the risk of electrocution were two to six employees of one subcontractor, including the plaintiff, and therefore there was not a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers. Ormsby v. Capital Welding, Inc., 471 Mich. 45 , 684 N.W.2d 320 (2004).
MARILYN J. KELLY, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., would deny leave to appeal.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that “two to six employees of one subcontractor” was not a significant number under the common work area doctrine)
-
(defining the relevant danger as “the risk of electrocution from a subcontractor’s crane coming into contact with power lines above the construction site”)
-
(“The only employees exposed to the risk of electrocution were two to six employees of one subcontractor, including the plaintiff, and therefore there was not a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers.”)
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.