Roulo v. Automobile Club of Mich., Docket No. 6693
| Decision Date | 26 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 6693,2 |
| Citation | 179 N.W.2d 712,24 Mich.App. 32 |
| Parties | Lawrence J. ROULO, d/b/a Lakepointe Plumbing & Heating Company, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
G. E. McCabe, McCabe & Middleton, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rouse, Selby, Dickinson, Shaw & Pike, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before LEVIN, P. J., and J. H. GILLIS, and BRONSON, JJ.
The trial court granted defendant Automobile Club of Michigan's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relied can be granted.* From this decision, plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he is a plumbing and heating contractor, that defendant published written specifications for the construction of its Utica division office, that plaintiff was furnished with a copy of the specifications for the purpose of bidding on the plumbing and heating work as provided for in the specifications, and that his bid was accepted by the general contractor, Siklitch and Little, Inc.
One of the specifications provided that Siklitch and Little, Inc. would 'obtain a labor and material bond and a performance bond, each in 100 per cent of the contract amount'. Siklitch and Little, Inc. did not, however, secure either a labor and material bond or a performance bond, and has since been adjudicated bankrupt. Plaintiff contends that defendant is liable for damages under a theory of negligent misrepresentation in tort because it failed as promisee to exact performance from the promisor, Siklitch and Little, Inc., to the detriment and loss of plaintiff.
We are concerned in the instant case with a rather unique problem: Whether in the case of a private general construction contract the owner (promisee) can be held liable to a subcontractor, who is not a party to the contract, because the owner fails to exercise due care to see to it that the general contractor (promisor) performs his contract with the owner.
Defendant says that no duty was owed plaintiff to see to it that the promisor, Siklitch and Little, Inc., would procure the required bonds although Siklitch and Little, Inc. was obliged to do so by contract.
Plaintiff concedes in this brief that defendant initially owed him no duty to require the furnishing of bonds for the protection of materialmen and subcontractors. It is only after it assumed to act, even though gratuitously, argues plaintiff, that defendant becomes liable if it failed to act with due care. Plaintiff does not, however, state what the defendant did, other than entering into the contract with the general contractor, which evidences its 'assumption to act'. The defendant here, unlike the defendant in Ray v. Transamerica Insurance Company (1968), 10 Mich.App. 55, 158 N.W.2d 786, 787, did no more than enter into a contract. In the Ray case the defendant, a workmen's compensation insurance carrier, not only entered into a contract with the plaintiff's employer but additionally 'undertook to provide safety inspection services and (plaintiff claimed) that it negligently performed this undertaking.'
A search of the leading treatises on the law of torts has not revealed any relevant comment or cases directed to this issue. Certainly there are categories of doctrine, cutting across many sectors of the law, which stand for the proposition that a promisee may be vicariously liable due to the failure of his promisor to perform properly his obligation. These exceptional c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roulo v. Automobile Club of Mich.
...Entire Bench. BRENNAN, Justice. A motion for summary judgment was granted in circuit court and affirmed in the Court of Appeals, 24 Mich.App. 32, 179 N.W.2d 712. The motion for summary judgment is a classic demurrer. It urged that the complaint fails to state a cause of In such a case, our ......