Eddie L Jacobs v. Walbridge Aldinger Company
328589
Mich. Ct. App.Dec 13, 2016Background
- Eddie L. Jacobs, an industrial electrician at Ford’s Sterling Axle Plant, fell from a ladder during demolition work and suffered serious injuries; his wife asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- Ford had engaged Walbridge Aldinger Company to provide construction services, including a construction manager and safety engineer; Walbridge participated in preparing and auditing pre-task analyses (PTAs).
- PTAs were required for high-risk, non-routine tasks (demolition, work at heights); plaintiff claimed the applicable PTA failed to instruct electricians to work with partners during demolition.
- Plaintiff sued Walbridge alleging it was the general/project contractor and breached duties to supervise the site and implement safety measures—allegations framed in terms of Walbridge’s supervisory role.
- Walbridge moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing plaintiff relied on the common work area doctrine (vicarious liability) and could not make that claim; plaintiff conceded the doctrine was inapplicable and instead argued active negligence based on Walbridge’s role in creating PTAs.
- The trial court granted summary disposition, finding the complaint pleaded only a common work area theory (vicarious liability) and plaintiff never sought leave to amend to assert active negligence; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint pleaded active (direct) negligence vs. a common work area (vicarious) claim | Jacobs: complaint and facts put Walbridge on notice of active negligence based on its PTA work and contract duties | Walbridge: complaint alleges only general-supervisory duties invoking the common work area doctrine; that doctrine is inapplicable | Held: Complaint alleges only a common work area theory; plaintiff conceded that doctrine is inapplicable, so summary disposition was proper |
| Whether Walbridge assumed a duty by participating in PTA creation that could support active negligence | Jacobs: Walbridge assumed a duty to perform PTA-related tasks with reasonable care, creating active negligence exposure | Walbridge: plaintiff did not plead specific tasks giving rise to a direct-duty theory; only pleaded supervisory duties | Held: Complaint lacked allegations of specific tasks or duties sufficient to plead active negligence |
| Whether the trial court erred by not sua sponte allowing plaintiff to amend the complaint after dismissal | Jacobs: should be permitted to amend to plead active negligence | Walbridge: plaintiff never sought leave to amend and had ample opportunity to do so during discovery and after motion | Held: No plain error—plaintiff did not request leave to amend; under MCR 2.116(I)(5)/2.118, court was not required to offer leave sua sponte |
| Whether dismissal was appropriate on summary disposition standard | Jacobs: factual record created issues of material fact supporting active negligence claim | Walbridge: legal theory pleaded controls; absent active-negligence pleading, no genuine issue for vicarious liability theory | Held: As a matter of law, summary disposition was proper because complaint pleaded only the inapplicable common work area theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich 105 (adopting and explaining the common work area doctrine)
- Johnson v. A & M Custom Built Homes of West Bloomfield, 261 Mich App 719 (contractor liability for active negligence when it undertakes specific tasks)
- Kloian v. Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232 (MCR 2.116(I)(5) and amendment practice; court not required to sua sponte offer leave to amend absent request)
- In re Kostin, 278 Mich App 47 (standards for denying leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility)
- Wilson v. Alpena Co. Rd. Comm., 474 Mich 161 (standard of review for summary disposition)