Fecteau v. Wolco Homes, Inc.

Citations: 188 N.W.2d 260; 32 Mich. App. 21; 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1834Docket: Docket 9577

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; March 26, 1971; Michigan; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Fecteau v. Wolco Homes, Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal following a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Wolco Homes, after the plaintiff, an injured construction worker, alleged negligence for failing to provide a safe work environment. The incident occurred on January 23, 1969, during the raising of a garage wall, which fell and injured the plaintiff. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff's complaint did not establish a duty owed by the defendant or raise any material issues of fact.

The plaintiff contended that the trial court improperly considered the defendant's affidavit in supporting its summary judgment motion, arguing that his complaint did state a valid cause of action. The court highlighted that motions for summary judgment based on the failure to state a cause of action do not require supporting affidavits. However, it allowed for the integration of subparts of the court rule, indicating that the presence of affidavits does not invalidate the motion if the opposing party is not misled and can demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. The court emphasized the need for clarity in the motives behind motions to avoid unfairness to the opposing party if they are led to believe the motion only challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings. The case was ultimately reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Supporting affidavits should be countered with opposing affidavits, even if the motion concerns only the legal sufficiency of pleadings, akin to sub-rule 117.2(3). In this case, the plaintiff was not misled, as his counsel actively contested the merits at the hearing and filed a responsive affidavit indicating intention to argue beyond GCR 1963, 117.2(1). The trial judge correctly considered the defendant's affidavit in support of its summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court in Durant v. Stahlin clarified that when faced with a defendant's summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must demonstrate a viable legal claim and present evidentiary support for material facts. The plaintiff failed to establish a claim, as his allegations rested solely on the assertion of a general contractor's duty to a subcontractor's employee. Although the plaintiff mentioned ultra-hazardous activity in response to the motion, the court upheld the trial court's determination that the plaintiff's work did not constitute such activity, given the obvious and natural conditions of the worksite. Additionally, the plaintiff's complaints about a deficient work crew were undermined by his own admissions of working with fewer team members previously. Michigan law indicates that general contractors are not obligated to provide safe working conditions or warn of obvious hazards. The courts are cautious in granting summary judgments in negligence cases, yet no factual issues were raised that would support a ruling in the plaintiff's favor. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, ruling in favor of the defendant and awarding costs to them. Notable points include that the defendant's vice-president's affidavit outlined the contractual responsibilities, which placed the onus of work safety on the plaintiff's employer, and the plaintiff's affidavit was excluded for not being made on personal knowledge as required by court rules. Lastly, the allegation of ultra-hazardous activity should have been included in the original complaint.