Chadwick Detrick v. Heidtman Steel Prods.
677 F. App'x 240
6th Cir.2017Background
- Detrick, an employee of independent contractor JD Construction, worked in the attic of Heidtman Steel’s Erie, MI plant removing cellulose insulation after a fire; JD controlled methods, equipment, staffing, and safety measures.
- Workers stood on joists (2–3 ft. apart) and were instructed not to step on the drywall between joists; cords, nails, and limited lighting were present; Detrick acknowledged awareness of these conditions.
- On the second day, while carrying bags of insulation, Detrick set the bags down to step over a waist-high cord, slipped off a joist, and fell approximately 15–25 feet, sustaining serious injuries.
- Detrick sued Heidtman for premises liability, nuisance per se, and nuisance in fact; he later indicated (but never filed) a request to amend to add negligence and inherently dangerous-activity claims against Heidtman.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Heidtman, finding the attic’s dangers were open and obvious, no "special aspects" made them unreasonably dangerous, and the inherently dangerous-activity claim amendment was denied as untimely and futile.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: (1) condition was open and obvious; (2) no special-aspects exception applied; and (3) denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because of undue delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attic conditions were open and obvious such that Heidtman owed no duty | Attic hazards (need to stand on joists, nails, cords, dim lighting, risk of long fall) were not open/obvious; working in an attic is uncommon/hidden | Attic hazards were observable; Detrick admitted knowledge and was instructed not to step on drywall | The attic dangers were open and obvious; no duty owed absent special aspects |
| Whether "special aspects" made an open-and-obvious danger unreasonably dangerous | Falling an extended distance from attic creates a uniquely severe risk satisfying the special-aspects exception | No unusual or public-facing characteristic; similar to ordinary attics and prior cases rejecting special-aspects for height hazards | No special aspects: ordinary attic risks (even from height) insufficient to trigger exception |
| Whether leave to amend complaint to add negligence/inherently dangerous-activity claims should have been allowed | Briefly announced intent to move to amend in summary-judgment response; argues Heidtman failed to "carefully select" JD | Amendment was untimely (after discovery closed and long after filing); no justification given; amendment would be futile | Denial affirmed: untimely with undue delay; district court did not abuse discretion; futility need not be decided |
| Whether Heidtman can be liable under inherently dangerous-activity doctrine for contractor’s work | Heidtman retained nondelegable duty unless it "carefully selected" JD; failed to do so | JD was independent contractor; Detrick offered no timely pleaded or supported claim; selection not challenged timely | Claim not considered: leave to amend denied for undue delay, so inherently-dangerous theory not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 629 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 2001) (articulates open-and-obvious rule and narrow "special aspects" exception)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 821 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2012) (emphasizes narrow scope of the special-aspects exception)
- Perkoviq v. Delcor Homes—Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd., 643 N.W.2d 212 (Mich. 2002) (ordinary rooftop/height hazards do not satisfy special-aspects exception)
- Woodbury v. Bruckner, 650 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishable decision finding special aspects for unguarded porch accessible to public/children)
- Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo, 702 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)