Negligence; Schultz v Consumers Power Co; Res ipsa loquitur; Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms LLC; Principle that a general contractor is typically not liable for a subcontractor’s negligence; Hughes v PMG Bldg, Inc; The common-work-area doctrine; Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc; Premises liability; Breach of duty owed to an invitee; Hoffner v Lanctoe; “Possession & control”; Orel v Uni-Rak Sales Co, Inc; “Possessor”; “Possession”; Derbabian v S & C Snowplowing, Inc; Expert testimony; MRE 702; MCL 600.2955(1); Indemnification

The court held in one of these appeals that the trial court erred by denying defendant-general contractor (DeMaria) summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims, and that issues involving defendant-subcontractor (Turner-Brooks) were premature. In the other appeal, it held an indemnity issue in abeyance pending remand. Thus, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued DeMaria alleging negligence, common-work-area liability, and premises liability for injuries he sustained while working for one of DeMaria’s subcontractors. He also sued Turner-Brooks alleging negligence. DeMaria filed a cross-claim against Turner-Brooks seeking contractual indemnification. On appeal, the court agreed with DeMaria that it was entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s negligence claim because he failed to offer any evidence that it breached a duty of care or proximately caused the accident. Assuming DeMaria “owed plaintiff some duty to make the premises safe, nothing in the record indicates” it breached this duty. None of its “employees were involved in loading or placing the cart near the column. And there is no evidence” it caused the cart to tip. DeMaria “simply had no involvement with the cart and, thus, cannot be held liable on a direct negligence theory.” In addition, “[e]ven assuming the cart would not tip over in the absence of some negligent act, plaintiff cannot satisfy all the elements necessary for the application of res ipsa loquitur.” The court also agreed with DeMaria that plaintiff failed to establish the elements necessary for his common-work-area claim, finding his claim “necessarily fails under the third element because there was not a high-degree of risk to a significant number of workers.” Further, it agreed with DeMaria that plaintiff failed to state a legally cognizable premises-liability claim against it because it did not have possession and control over the land, finding there was no evidence it “possessed the premises to the exclusion of all others.” The court next found that consideration of Turner-Brooks’ argument was premature because the trial court “failed to consider whether the expert testimony of causation that plaintiff proffered was substantively admissible for summary disposition purposes.” Finally, because there was not yet a finding of Turner-Brooks’ “or another person’s ‘act or omission, negligent or otherwise[,]’” the court held the “indemnity issue in abeyance pending remand of the issue in the cross-appeal for the trial court to make factual findings.” It retained jurisdiction.