531 N.W.2d 724 (Mich.App. 1995), 161576, Parcher v. Detroit Edison Co.
|Docket Nº:||Docket No. 161576.|
|Citation:||531 N.W.2d 724, 209 Mich.App. 495|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||Theodore R. PARCHER, Jr., Yvonne M. Parcher, Individually and as Next Friend of Amanda Mae Parcher, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Parliament Company, a Foreign Corporation and Cideco, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendants.|
|Attorney:||Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. by Ernest R. Bazzana (Walter S. Schwartz, of counsel), Detroit, for Detroit Edison Co.|
|Judge Panel:||Before CONNOR, P.J., and WAHLS and SAAD, JJ.|
|Case Date:||January 24, 1995|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Michigan|
Submitted Jan. 11, 1995, at Detroit.
Approved for Publication March 22, 1995, at 9:15 a.m.
Released for Publication May 24, 1995.
Michael J. Mangapora, P.C. by Robert D. Kent-Bryant, Flint, for Theodore R. Parcher, Jr., and Yvonne M. Parcher.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition[209 Mich.App. 496] in favor of The Detroit Edison Company (hereafter defendant). On appeal, plaintiffs claim that defendant should have foreseen the injuries that resulted and that it owed a duty to plaintiff Theodore Parcher. We affirm.
In July of 1990, Theodore Parcher (hereafter plaintiff) sustained serious and permanent injuries after scaffolding he was transporting on a forklift came in contact with an electrical wire owned by defendant. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was working on the construction of a Kroger store, and the uncollapsed scaffolding he was transporting was twenty-nine feet high. The electrical wire was thirty-five feet off the ground and sixty-seven feet from the building site. The evidence established that Detroit Edison was aware of the building project and that one of its poles would have to be moved in order to accommodate the parking lot at the new store. Detroit Edison was not in violation of any safety regulations at the time of the accident, but, by operating the forklift within ten feet of the wire, plaintiff had violated safety standards adopted pursuant to M.C.L. § 408.1016; M.S.A. § 17.50(16) as 1979 AC, R 408.11936. A few days before the accident, the electrical foreman had warned workers of the wire, and plaintiff was aware of the location of the wire.
The trial court ruled that defendant did not owe plaintiff a legal duty to move...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP