Background
On September 26, 2019, Peter Tolodziecki suffered severe injuries when inadequately braced roof trusses fell on him during construction of a residential lodge on property owned by The Place to Bee, Inc. (TPTB), with Duane VanderArk as president. The project involved multiple subcontractors: Tolodziecki worked for Mid-Michigan Contractor LLC, JonBuilt Construction handled framing and truss installation, and The Crane Guy positioned the trusses. Other workers were similarly endangered.
The accident occurred when JonBuilt discovered it had installed a standard truss instead of a required fire-break truss and decided to remove it. As the crane lifted the truss, it struck previously installed trusses, causing them to collapse. The parties do not dispute that proper bracing would have prevented the collapse, or that the crane operator had warned workers to add more bracing before the removal. Tolodziecki and others were injured; Tolodziecki has been unable to work since the incident.
Tolodziecki sued for negligence under the “common work area” doctrine and for workers’ compensation benefits under the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA). The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of VanderArk and TPTB, ruling that VanderArk’s absence from the site excused liability and that the danger was not readily observable. It also determined Tolodziecki was an employee only of Mid-Michigan, not the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. On the common work area doctrine, the court held that disputed questions of fact preclude summary dismissal on nearly all elements. Most significantly, the court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that VanderArk’s absence from the worksite shielded him from liability. A general contractor or property owner-in-control owes a duty to guard against readily observable, avoidable dangers in common work areas regardless of physical presence. The court held that permitting such owners to escape liability through selective absence would undermine the doctrine’s protective purpose and encourage defendants to avoid jobsites to evade liability.
The court found sufficient evidence of disputed facts regarding VanderArk’s role as general contractor or owner-in-control, the high degree of risk to multiple workers (7–10 workers total), and whether the injury occurred in a common work area shared by multiple subcontractors. The trial court had failed to resolve the ultimate question of whether inadequate bracing was “readily observable”—it based dismissal solely on VanderArk’s absence. The court vacated without prejudice, permitting defendants to renew the “readily observable” argument on remand.
On workers’ compensation claims, the court held that disputed facts exist regarding whether Tolodziecki was an employee of defendants or only Mid-Michigan. Evidence showed Tolodziecki worked exclusively at TPTB property, performed tasks at VanderArk’s direction, received his wage determined by VanderArk, and was discharged by VanderArk. The trial court’s bare assertion that MCL 418.171 (the statutory employer provision) was “inapplicable” provided no adequate legal basis for summary disposition and must be reconsidered on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A property owner or general contractor cannot escape common work area doctrine liability by being absent from the jobsite when injury occurs; the duty is ongoing.
- Permitting absence-based immunity would eviscerate the doctrine’s purpose of ensuring safety precautions are actually implemented at construction sites.
- When multiple entities direct, control, and pay a worker, employment status for WDCA purposes is a question of fact requiring trial, not subject to summary dismissal based on labels or informal arrangements.
- The statutory employer provision of the WDCA provides important protection for workers of uninsured contractors and requires careful legal analysis; dismissal demands analysis of specific statutory requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly clarifies property owners’ and general contractors’ liability exposure in construction accidents. The ruling establishes that defendants cannot use selective absence from a jobsite as a liability shield—the common work area doctrine imposes an affirmative duty to oversee safety regardless of physical presence. This has major implications for construction site management: owners and contractors cannot delegate safety responsibilities or escape liability through strategic non-appearance, even when specialized subcontractors are on site. The decision rejects a rule that would perversely incentivize defendants to stay away from jobsites.
The decision also reinforces the importance of the WDCA’s statutory employer provision as a safety net for workers employed by uninsured or inadequately insured contractors. When multiple entities are involved in construction, courts cannot rely on formal characterizations or informal arrangements; they must examine actual control, direction, and wage payment. Summary dismissal of workers’ compensation claims requires thorough engagement with the statute’s requirements. This ruling will likely return many construction injury cases to trial where facts about control and employment status are genuinely disputed.