Negligence claim arising from a fall on a car trailer; Duty; Hill v Sears, Roebuck & Co; Whether a special relationship existed; The No-Fault Act; Excess wage loss claim; MCL 500.3107(1)(b)

The court held that (1) defendants owed “no duty to plaintiff to protect him from falling off the car trailer” that gave rise to his injuries, and (2) the record did not support the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact that he sustained excess wage loss as a result of their negligence. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his negligence and excess wage loss claims. Plaintiff worked as a mechanic at an auto sales business he owned. Defendant-Achkar asked him to inspect some vehicles Achkar had purchased at an auction to determine if they needed any repairs. Plaintiff was injured after he climbed onto the trailer. He argued that “Achkar’s words and actions created a risk of foreseeable harm to plaintiff, such that defendants had a duty to protect him from falling off the trailer.” He alternatively asserted “the parties had a special relationship that created such a duty.” The court disagreed, noting that the “mere fact that an event may be foreseeable . . . is insufficient to impose a duty upon a defendant.” Further, defendants were “not in an existing category of special relationships (e.g., a common carrier or plaintiff’s employer)” and the court could not “find any legal basis for recognizing a new special relationship based on defendants’ level of control over plaintiff.” It appeared that the nature of the relationship was “a casual business relationship, in which Achkar occasionally pays plaintiff to repair his cars. And plaintiff’s testimony establishes that Achkar, although a persistent customer, had no actual control over plaintiff. [He] testified that he did not want to climb on the trailer to inspect the car” but that Achkar asked him to do so repeatedly “and stayed ‘very very very persistent.’” The court found that neither “Achkar’s statements nor the parties’ relationship created a legal duty to plaintiff. . . . Achkar did not force plaintiff to climb on the trailer. Additionally, Achkar’s statements that ‘nothing will happen,’ ‘I’ll be right behind you,’ and ‘you’ll be okay’ are not legally significant.” Further, while plaintiff’s testimony indicated “he may have assumed that Achkar had some special knowledge or expertise that could prevent a fall or injury,” this assumption was not supported. “Finally, although Achkar may have made statements accepting fault for plaintiff’s fall, Achkar’s willingness to take moral blame does not confirm the existence of a legal duty.”