Summary
In Banaszak, 477 Mich 895, the Supreme Court rejected this Court's decision that the defendant created a new hazard while working in the construction of a new airline terminal.
Summary of this case from Price v. City of Royal OakOpinion
No. 130901.
October 25, 2006.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals No. 263305.
Summary Disposition October 25, 2006.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of the Wayne Circuit Court granting summary disposition to defendant Otis Elevator Company. Otis entered into a contract to install moving walkways in a new airport terminal. As part of that contract, Otis was required to provide a cover over the "wellway," an opening at the end of the moving walkway that contains the mechanical elements. The purpose of the cover was to protect persons using that area. The plaintiff was injured when she stepped on an inadequate piece of plywood covering the "wellway." This hazard was the subject of the Otis contract. As a result, Otis owed no duty to plaintiff that was "separate and distinct" from its duties under the contract. Fultz v Union-Commerce Associates, 470 Mich 460 (2004).
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would deny leave to appeal.