“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.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Matthew Belobradich v. Centennial Home Group LLC
Mich. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote
· confidence high
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nathan Swan v. Patrick O'Leary
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mich. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Similarly, our Supreme Court, in Alderman v JC Dev Communities, LLC, 486 Mich 906, 906 (2010), held there -5- was not a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers because “[t]he only employees exposed to the risk . . . were two to six employees of one subcontractor, including the plaintiff[.]” In this case, only four people were shown to be near or on the platform when it was being improperly used: plaintiff, Bueby, and two other independent contractors in Bueby’s employ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shareef El-Jamaly v. Kirco Manix Construction LLC
(2×)
Mich. · 2024 · confidence medium
Placing ultimate responsibility on the general contractor for job safety in common work areas will, from a practical, economic standpoint, render it more likely that the various subcontractors being supervised by the general contractor will implement or that the general contractor will himself implement the necessary precautions and provide the necessary safety equipment in those areas. ‘[A]s a practical matter in many cases only the general contractor is in a position to coordinate work or provide expensive safety features that protect employees of many or all of the subcontractors. . . . […
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan v. State
(3×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Our Supreme Court later affirmed, albeit in result only, opining that solely on the basis of “plaintiffs’ pleadings in this case, it is premature to make a decision on the substantive issues.” Duncan, 486 Mich at 906.
discussed
Cited "see"
Shareef El-Jamaly v. Kirco Manix Construction LLC
(2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alderman v JC Dev Communities, LLC, 486 Mich 906, 906 (2010) (defining the relevant danger as “the risk of electrocution from a subcontractor’s crane coming into contact with power lines above the construction site”).