|
No. 122939 122940
| Robert F. Deshambo, |
|
Theodore F. Fulsher (906) 226-6149 |
| Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
and |
|
|
| Attorney General, Department of Community |
|
Joel D. McGormley
(517) 373-7700 |
Health, and State of Michigan, |
|
|
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Leelanau - Power, T.) |
|
|
Charles W. Anderson, |
|
|
Defendant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Norman R. Nielsen and Pauline Nielsen, |
|
Dale L. Arndt
(616) 365-9600 |
Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, &
Reinforcing Iron Workers' Memorandum of Law of Amici>>
Background
Norman and Pauline Nielsen hired Charles Anderson to clear brush and harvest small poplar trees from their property. Anderson, in turn, hired Robert DeShambo to help him. DeShambo was paralyzed when a tree felled by Anderson struck him in the shoulder, causing another felled tree to strike DeShambo in the back. DeShambo sued the Nielsens, claiming that cutting timber was an inherently dangerous activity and that the Nielsens owed him a duty to conduct such activities in a reasonable and safe manner. DeShambo also argued that the Nielsens could not delegate this duty to Anderson. The State of Michigan intervened as a plaintiff to recover funds that it paid and expected to pay to DeShambo through the Medicare program. The trial court granted the Nielsens’ motion for summary disposition and dismissed the case. The trial judge found that Norman Nielsen was not a sophisticated landowner who would be knowledgeable about the risks involved in cutting timber. Therefore, the inherently dangerous doctrine attaching liability to property owners did not apply, the judge concluded. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the determination whether logging is inherently dangerous is a question for the jury because the plaintiffs presented evidence concerning the hazardous elements of logging. The Nielsens appeal.
Top of Page
|
