GREG SIMPSON V AUKEMAN DEVELOPMENT CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GREG SIMPSON,
UNPUBLISHED
May 2, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 215155
Ottawa Circuit Court
LC No. 96-025074-NO
AUKEMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Sawyer and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals by right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant
to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor as a roofer on a construction project. Defendant
was the general contractor. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from the roof. He brought this action
alleging that defendant failed to take steps to guard against unreasonable risks to workers on the site.
As a rule, a general contractor is not liable for the injuries of a subcontractor’s employee.
Groncki v Detroit Edison Co, 453 Mich 644, 662; 557 NW2d 289 (1996). An exception to this
general rule applies when there are avoidable dangers in a common work area. To find liability under
this exception, there must be: 1) a general contractor with supervisory and coordinating authority over
the job site, 2) a common work area shared by the employees of more than one subcontractor, and 3) a
readily observable and avoidable danger in that common work area, 4) that creates a high degree of
risk to a significant number of workers. Id.
At a minimum, for a general contractor to be held directly liable in negligence, its retention of
control must have had some actual effect on the manner or environment in which the work was
performed. Candelaria v B C General Contractors, Inc, 236 Mich App 67, 76; 600 NW2d 348
(1999). In order for a common work area to exist, there must be an area where the employees of two
or more subcontractors will eventually work. Phillips v Mazda Motor Mfg, 204 Mich App 401, 408;
516 NW2d 502 (1994).
-1
In Hughes v PMG Building, Inc, 227 Mich App 1; 574 NW2d 691 (1997), the plaintiff was a
roofer hired as an independent contractor. He was injured when a porch he was working on collapsed
because of inadequate support. This Court found that the roof was not a common work area.
Although the porch was constructed by another subcontractor, no other trade would be working on the
roof, thus no one else would be subject to the same hazard. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff argues that Hughes was wrongly decided because prior Supreme Court cases had
found a common work area under similar circumstances. However, the focus of the cases relied on by
plaintiff is on risk to workers who would be present in the area in the future. While carpenters
constructed the underlying portion of the roof, once they completed their task, only the roofers would
be using that work area. The trial court properly applied Hughes in granting summary disposition to
defendant.
We affirm.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
