Summary
holding that "two to six employees of one subcontractor" was not a significant number under the common work area doctrine
Summary of this case from El-Jamaly v. Kirco Manix Constr.Opinion
No. 140051.
April 30, 2010.
Court of Appeals No. 285744.
Summary Disposition.
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 (2004).
KELLY, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., would deny leave to appeal.