Guldenstein v. Merit Energy Company LLC
4:15-cv-14181
E.D. Mich.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Merit Energy contracted Hart Gas & Oil for maintenance; Robert Guldenstein was an employee of Hart and came to Merit’s Hartland facility to repair a hydrogen sulfide valve on Nov. 5, 2014.
- Neither Guldenstein nor Hart wore respiratory protection; Guldenstein was exposed to hydrogen sulfide and injured during the repair.
- MIOSHA investigated and produced a report finding Merit violated two MIOSHA regulations.
- Plaintiffs did not disclose any expert witness on the applicable standard of care before the scheduling-order deadline; they intended to rely on MIOSHA findings and MIOSHA witnesses instead.
- Merit moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs cannot prove breach of duty without expert testimony in this technically specialized setting and that MIOSHA records are inadmissible or inapplicable to create a duty to a third-party invitee.
- The court concluded MIOSHA regulations govern employer-employee relations and do not create a duty running to a third-party invitee like Guldenstein, so plaintiffs lack evidence of breach and the court granted summary judgment for Merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can prove breach of duty without expert testimony in a specialized industrial case | Guldenstein: no expert needed; MIOSHA violations and MIOSHA witnesses suffice to show Merit breached duty | Merit: expert testimony is required to establish industry standard and breach in a highly specialized environment | Court: expert testimony is required for specialized matters; plaintiffs offered no admissible substitute evidence of breach |
| Whether MIOSHA violations constitute evidence of Merit’s breach to a third-party invitee | Plaintiffs: MIOSHA violations found in the investigation are evidence of negligence/breach | Merit: MIOSHA regs apply only to employer-employee relationships and do not create duties to third parties; MIOSHA report may be inadmissible | Court: MIOSHA regulations apply to employers/employees only and do not impose a duty to plaintiff; MIOSHA findings therefore are not evidence of breach |
| Admissibility/use of MIOSHA report to prove regulatory violation | Plaintiffs: will call MIOSHA investigators/records custodian to introduce findings | Merit: MIOSHA report lacks trustworthiness under FRE 803(8)(B) and even if admitted, regulations don't create duty to plaintiff | Court: did not rely on MIOSHA report as creating a duty; held MIOSHA regulations inapplicable to impose duty to plaintiff |
| Whether plaintiffs proved all elements of negligence/premises liability | Plaintiffs: contend duty and breach shown via regulations and investigation | Merit: lack of expert proof on breach means plaintiffs cannot establish an essential element | Court: plaintiffs failed to present evidence of breach; summary judgment granted for Merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and Rule 56 principles)
- Beals v. Walker, 331 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. 1982) (discussing safety-regulation evidence and premises duty)
- Hardaway v. Consol. Paper Co., 114 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. 1962) (statutory violation constitutes negligence only if statute applies to defendant)
- Zeni v. Anderson, 243 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 1976) (statute’s purpose limits to whom duty runs)
- Paul v. Lee, 568 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. 1997) (expert testimony required when issues involve special knowledge)