Joseph Velez, Jr., was injured when he fell off the
flat roof of an industrial building while performing roofing work. Suit was brought against several parties,
including the owners of the building and the general contractor. Those defendants moved for summary
disposition, and the trial court granted summary disposition in their favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part in an unpublished opinion.
The Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that the trial court did not err
in granting summary disposition in favor of the general contractor on the
plaintiff’s claim under the common work area doctrine. But a two-judge majority reversed the grant
of summary disposition on the claim raised against the building owners, which
was based on a premises liability theory.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to
address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it determined that
genuine issues of material fact precluded dismissal of the plaintiff’s premises
liability claim. Perkoviq v Delcor
Home-Lake Shore, Ltd, 466 Mich 11 (2002); Hoffner v
Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (2012).