Stewart Spencer v. DTE Electric Co.
17-1168
| 6th Cir. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stewart Spencer, an employee of Monarch (a contractor), fell into a gap in the upper chamber (U-WPAH) of an air heater at DTE’s Belle River Power Plant on Oct. 1, 2012, injuring his shoulder.
- DTE had contracted Brand to install plywood decking over gaps in the stator; Brand removed the decking for a DTE inspection and the decking was not replaced when Spencer returned to work.
- Yellow caution tape and a warning tag were placed at the U-WPAH access; Spencer wore a safety harness and retractable lanyard when he entered the area.
- Spencer sued DTE (and later Brand) in federal court asserting state-law negligence theories: active negligence by DTE, premises liability as a landowner toward an invitee, and liability under the common work area/retained-control doctrine.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DTE and Brand, holding the hazard was open and obvious (barring premises liability absent special aspects) and rejecting a common work area claim because Spencer did not allege negligence by a subcontractor.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: no special aspects excused the open-and-obvious bar, and the common work area doctrine could not impose vicarious liability where no subcontractor negligence was alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special aspects negate the open-and-obvious bar to premises liability | Spencer: gaps were effectively unavoidable or unreasonably dangerous (special aspects) because his job required traversing the uncovered grid | DTE: hazard was open and obvious, avoidable, and not unusually dangerous; warnings and PPE were provided | Court: Hazard was open and obvious; no special aspects (not effectively unavoidable; not unreasonably dangerous) — open-and-obvious doctrine bars recovery |
| Whether DTE can be held under the common work area (retained-control) doctrine | Spencer: DTE retained control/common work area liability applies and it’s an exception to open-and-obvious | DTE: common work area theory is vicarious; requires negligence by an independent contractor/subcontractor | Court: Common work area is vicarious; Spencer alleges DTE’s own acts, not subcontractor negligence, so doctrine does not apply |
| Whether Spencer preserved/relied on an active negligence theory against DTE | Spencer: asserted duties as owner/general contractor (some mention) | DTE: facts support premises-liability characterization; plaintiff effectively pursued premises theory | Court: Plaintiff abandoned active negligence on appeal; facts support premises-liability framework, not independent active negligence |
| Whether summary judgment was proper under Michigan law applying Erie | Spencer: challenges district court’s legal conclusions on special aspects and common work area | DTE: summary judgment appropriate as a matter of law under Michigan precedents | Court: Reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment for DTE (and Brand dismissal not appealed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkoviq v. Delcor Homes—Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd., 643 N.W.2d 212 (Mich. 2002) (open-and-obvious doctrine bars recovery even where work requires confronting the hazard)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 629 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 2001) (special aspects exception narrowly applies when open-and-obvious hazard is effectively unavoidable or unreasonably dangerous)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 821 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2012) (clarifies narrow scope and standards for special aspects exception)
- Ghaffari v. Turner Constr. Co., 699 N.W.2d 687 (Mich. 2005) (common work area/retained-control doctrines are exceptions to non-liability of owners/general contractors)
- Detrick v. Heidtman Steel Prods., Inc., [citation="677 F. App'x 240"] (6th Cir. 2017) (similar fall-through-gap facts; special aspects not satisfied)
- Tompkins v. Crown Corr., Inc., 726 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2013) (standards for duty to invitees under Michigan law)