Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ROBERT BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v DAN DURAN, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005

No. 263463 Kent Circuit Court LC No. 03-006923-NZ

Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Neff and Markey, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this negligence action, plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the trial court granting summary disposition in favor of defendant and dismissing plaintiff's claim. We affirm. I In April 2002, defendant hired plaintiff to perform repair of a leaky nine-foot-by-twelvefoot roof on a rental home owned by defendant. At the end of the second day of work, plaintiff was attempting to cover the partially repaired roof with a tarp when the roof board gave way and plaintiff fell approximately twenty feet to the ground. Plaintiff alleged that the roof gave way when he stepped from the ladder onto a rotted piece of scrap wood that defendant insisted plaintiff use to patch the roof. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries, was hospitalized, and underwent surgery. Plaintiff spent approximately nine-months at a center recuperating after his surgery, during which time his mobility was restricted. He alleged that he thereafter was unable to fully resume his work as a drywaller because of the residual effects of his injuries from the fall. II This Court reviews de novo a trial court's grant of summary disposition. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is properly granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). The court considers the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and other documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.

-1-


III
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims against defendant as an employer.1 We disagree. Plaintiff has failed to set forth any basis for reversal of the grant of summary disposition on the ground that defendant violated his duties as an employer. Plaintiff asserts that defendant owed plaintiff a duty to provide a safe environment in which to work. In general, "[a]n employer must provide and maintain a reasonably safe place to work and reasonably safe tools and appliances." 15 Michigan Law & Practice, Employment (2d ed),

Download ROBERT BURTON V DAN DURAN.pdf

Michigan Law