|
No. 123287 123289
| Ralph Ormsby and Kimberly Ormsby, |
|
Patrick Burkett
(248) 355-0300 |
| Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
| (Oakland - Gilbert, Alice) |
|
|
| Capital Welding, Inc., |
|
Joseph J. Wright (248) 827-3834 |
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
Monarch Building Services, Inc., |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Metropolitan Building Services and |
|
|
Rite Aid of Michigan, |
|
|
Defendants-Not Participating. |
|
|
| ---------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Ralph Ormsby and Kimberly Ormsby, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
Capital Welding, Inc., |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Monarch Building Services, Inc., |
|
Michael M. Wachsberg (248) 363-6400 |
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
Metropolitan Building Services and |
|
|
| Rite Aid of Michigan, |
|
|
| Defendants-Not Participating. |
|
|
| _____________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant Capital Welding, Inc.'s Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant Monarch Building Services, Inc.'s Brief on Appeal>>
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, & Reinforcing Iron
Workers' Memorandum of Law of Amici>>
Michigan Chapter, Associated General Contractors and Associated
General Contractors, Greater Detroit Chapter's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Manufacturers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Ralph Ormsby, who was employed by Abray Steel Erectors, was injured when a structure he was working on collapsed. Monarch Building Services was the general contractor on the project, while Capital Welding was subcontracted to erect steel supports in the building. Capital subcontracted the work to Abray Steel. Ormsby sued Monarch and Capital. As a general rule, a general contractor is not liable for the acts of independent contractors. Ormsby argued in part that Monarch and Capital were liable because he was injured in a "common work area" used by employees of other subcontractors. He also argued that, despite subcontracting to Abray, Capital retained control of the worksite. Capital moved to dismiss the case; the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in a published opinion, allowing Ormsby to proceed with his retained control and common work area claims. Generally, the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for harm caused to another by the subcontractor or its servants, the Court of Appeals noted. But there are a number of exceptions, including the "retained control" and "common work area" exception, the court noted. The Court of Appeals recognized that with "respect to the retained control and common work area exceptions, this Court has applied them as two separate exceptions, but also as a single exception." In some earlier opinions, the Court of Appeals had held that the doctrine of retained control applies only in situations involving common work areas, the court noted. The Court of Appeals concluded that retained control and common work area are two separate exceptions, and that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Capital retained control of the project. With Monarch, however, the Court of Appeals held that no retained control exception applied as plaintiff had not shown that Monarch had anything other than general oversight of the project. In regard to the common work area exception, the Court of Appeals noted that evidence showed that others would be or were working in the area where Ormsby was injured. The Court of Appeal held this claim could proceed against both Monarch and Capital. Monarch and Capital appeal.
Top of Page
|
