Full text
Alderman v. JC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC

Loading…
Opinion
486 Mich. 906 · Michigan Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2010
Full text
Alderman v. JC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC
Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2022
Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2022
Michigan Court of Appeals · May 28, 2020
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2020
Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2019
Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2013
Michigan Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2010
Parentheticals
holding that “two to six employees of one subcontractor” was not a significant number under the common work area doctrine
holding that exposing “two to six employees of one subcontractor” to the risk of electrocution was not enough to meet the third element of the common work area doctrine
holding the common work area doctrine did not apply when only two to six employees of a single contractor were at risk of electrocution
defining the relevant danger as “the risk of electrocution from a subcontractor’s crane coming into contact with power lines above the construction site”
“The only employees exposed to the risk of electrocution were two to six employees of one subcontractor, including the plaintiff, and therefore there was not a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers.”