 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pavia v. Ellis-Don Michigan11/27/2001
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff Raymond Pavia appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition to all defendants in this case involving an accident at a construction site at the University of Michigan. We affirm.
I. Basic Facts
In 1995, the University of Michigan was in the midst of a massive renovation of the C.C. Little Building. Despite the disruption inherent in a project that took two years and thirteen phases, the departments of paleontology and pharmacy continued to occupy the building during the renovation. Barricades labeled "danger, construction" and "construction area" kept students and university employees from straying too far from the safe areas of the building and into the path of the potentially dangerous work being done there.
Ellis-Don Michigan, Inc., the University of Michigan's general contractor for the project, entered into subcontracts with other contractors to carry out the renovation. One of those subcontractors, defendant Goyette Mechanical Co., was the "prime" mechanical contractor. Goyette, in turn, subcontracted insulation work to Pipe Covering, Inc. Pipe Covering, Inc. was Pavia's employer. Ellis-Don subcontracted the demolition work for the project to defendant Bierlein Demolition Contractors and subcontracted the masonry work to defendant Southeastern Michigan Masonry Contractors.
According to Pavia's deposition testimony, he was at the project site in July 1995 and was walking toward the mechanical room carrying a box of fiberglass insulation with one hand over his shoulder, when he moved to the left side of the hallway to avoid wheelbarrows and a mortar tray. Suddenly, he stumbled over an object he did not see. Although he was able to keep his balance well enough not to fall to the floor, Pavia seriously injured his knee. Pavia continued working despite his injury. Though Pavia did not specifically recall on which date this accident occurred, he thought that it had happened approximately two weeks before he first sought medical attention for his knee.
After finally going to the hospital, Pavia returned to the work site and saw what he believed had tripped him. He described the obstacle as a protrusion in the middle of the hallway. He believed that it was a remnant of an old wall Bierlein left or fresh mortar Southeastern had spilled. Although no one saw Pavia stumble, co-workers described this obstacle. One co-worker described it as "some sort of something sticking out of the floor in the corridor," "about an inch and a half." Another co-worker described a high spot in the floor outside the second floor entrance to the mechanical room, which he (the co-worker) thought was a sill left over from an old closet. A third co-worker claimed to have stepped on or walked around the object several times. According to this third co-worker, the workers at the site knew about this condition and spoke about it occasionally in their break room. None of the co-workers had reported the condition to anyone in charge of the site and none of them knew of anyone else who had reported it.
II. Procedural History
In November 1997, Pavia sued Ellis-Don. His complaint alleged negligence, premises liability, and failure to maintain a safe workplace. His theory was, in part, that Ellis-Don had retained control of the worksite and that the activities that occurred there were inherently dangerous. Pavia subsequently amended his complaint to add Goyette, Bierlein, and Southeastern as defendants.
Following discovery, defendants filed individual motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). After the hearing on defendants' motions for summary disposition,
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|