Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC
489 Mich. 157
| Mich. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Richard Loweke, an electrician, was injured when cement boards leaned against a wall at a Detroit Metro Airport construction site.
- Defendant Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co. was a carpentry/drywall subcontractor hired by the general contractor Walbridge Aldinger Company.
- Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when cement boards fell on him; defendant had arranged and secured the boards as part of its contractual duties.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence; defendant moved for summary disposition arguing no separate tort duty existed apart from its contract with Walbridge, relying on Fultz v Union-Commerce Assoc.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary disposition; the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to clarify Fultz’s separate-and-distinct duty analysis.
- The Supreme Court held that a contracting party’s assumption of contractual obligations does not extinguish preexisting common-law or statutory tort duties owed to noncontracting third parties, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Fultz bar a third-party tort claim when based on contractual duties? | Loweke argues for a separate, distinct legal duty apart from contract. | Loweke's claim is barred by relying on contract; defendant owed no independent duty. | Duty independent of contract can exist; remand to determine separately. |
| Whether a contracting party’s contract with a third party extinguishes preexisting duties to a noncontracting tort plaintiff. | There is an independent duty to exercise due care to avoid harm. | Contractual obligations determine duties; no separate duty. | Contract does not extinguish preexisting duties; independent duty may exist. |
| Application of Fultz’s separate-and-distinct analysis to determine tort liability. | Fultz should be applied to identify a duty independent of contract. | Fultz guidance is misunderstood and should bar negligence claims lacking independent duty. | Focus on whether a legal duty exists independent of the contract; not on contract terms alone. |
| Is Loweke’s claim necessarily barred because the hazard was created during contract performance? | Hazard creation may reflect a separate duty to avoid harm. | Hazard relates to contract performance and thus is not independently tortious. | Independent duty may arise apart from contract; case-specific remand required. |
| Remand direction for trial court to apply clarified Fultz framework. | Remand is necessary to evaluate independent duties under common law. | No independent duty exists under the record; judgment should be affirmed. | Remand to proceed consistently with clarified framework; reversal of Court of Appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fultz v. Union-C-Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460 (Mich. 2004) (redefines duty as separate and distinct to third parties)
- Davis v Venture One Constr, Inc, 568 F.3d 570 (CA6 2009) (recognizes independent duty concepts in contract contexts)
- Clark v Dalman, 379 Mich 251 (1967) (duty imposed by law to avoid harm in undertakings)
- Rinaldo’s Constr v Mich Bell Tel Co, 454 Mich 65 (1997) (separate and distinct duties may arise despite contract)
- Ferrett v Gen Motors Corp, 438 Mich 235 (1991) (discussion of misfeasance/nonfeasance and duties arising from law)
- Hart v Ludwig, 347 Mich 559 (1956) (common-law duty to act with due care in undertakings)
- Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495 (1988) (special relationship may create duty exceptions)
- Mierzejewski v Torre & Bruglio, Inc, 477 Mich 1087 (2007) (court orders related to Fultz interpretations)
- Banaszak v Northwest Airlines, Inc, 477 Mich 895 (2006) (court orders related to Fultz interpretations)