Case Name: ROYAL v. McNULTY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-06-24
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 713
Docket Number: Docket No. 6,440
Parties: ROYAL v. McNULTY
Judges: BEFORE: Holbrook, P. J., and McGregor and Bronson, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 713–715

Head Matter:
ROYAL v. McNULTY
1. Dismissal and Nonsuit — Negligence—Duty—Opening Statement.
Negligence action that charged general contractors with failing to use reasonable care in the conduct of their operations with the result that a scaffolding upon which an employee of a subcontractor was working tilted causing his injury was properly dismissed, where the facts pleaded in all pleadings and in the plaintiffs’ opening statement failed to describe any duty of eare owed by defendants to plaintiffs.
2. Negligence — Building Construction — Duty—Safe Place to Work.
No duty exists on the part of a general contractor to provide a safe place upon which a subcontractor can ereet his scaffolding when buildings are under construction.
3. Negligence — Building Contractor — Scaffolding—Duty of Inspection — Bight to Control.
A general contractor has no right to exercise control over 'scaffolding erected by a subcontractor nor does he have a duty of inspecting scaffolding ereeted by a subcontractor. '
References for Points in IIeadnotes
[1, 2] 35 Am Jur, Master and Servant § 183 et seq.
38 Am Jur, Negligence §§ 12-28, 85-91, 258 ét seq.
[..1,2,3] Applicability of res ipsa loquitur to injuries or death sustained by collapse, failure, or falling of scaffold. 22 ALR" 2d 1170.
Wliat constitutes a “scaffold” within scaffold safety requirement statutes. 87 ALR2d 977.
[3] 38 Am Jur, Negligence §§ 86, 87, ' : .
Appeal from Oakland, Arthur E. Moore, J. „ Submitted Division 2 June-3, 1969, at Detroit.. ,
(Docket No. 6,440.)
Decided June 24, 1969.
•-Leave to.appeal denied February 12, 1970.
See 363 Mich 766.
Complaint by Ivan Royal and C. Joan Royal against Robert B. McNulty and Robert G. Gabriel for damages resulting from injuries sustained in a fall while on construction work. Action dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Robert W. Moss, for plaintiffs. .
Vandeveer, Doelle, Garzia, Tonkin & Kerr, for defendants.
BEFORE: Holbrook, P. J., and McGregor and Bronson, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs brought this civil action to recover for the alleged negligence of the defendants, charging that the defendants failed to use reasonable care in the conduct of their operations so that a scaffolding upon which the injured plaintiff, Ivan Royal, was working tilted, causing his injury.
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' opening statement the defendants made a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs then requested to amend their pleadings. This was allowed by the court and it was accomplished orally. The trial court ruled upon the motion to dismiss and held that as a matter of law the facts pleaded in the pleadings including the amendments subsequent to the opening statement and the plaintiffs' opening statement failed to describe any duty of care owed by defendants to the plaintiffs. This court agrees with that ruling:
There is no duty on the part of general contractors to provide a safe place upon which the subcontractor can erect his scaffolding when buildings are under construction. Groleau v. Hallenbeck (1954), 340 Mich 519. Since it was the subcontractor who erected the scaffolding, the general contractor had no right to exercise control nor did he have a duty of inspection. Munson v. Vane-Stecker Company (1956), 347 Mich 377.
It also appears to this Court that bricklayers are sought out by a general contractor for their specific skills. It, therefore, is not reasonable to assume that the general contractor should he required to substitute its judgment for that of the plaintiff or his employer who hold themselves to he proficient in this area of construction. Dees v. L. F. Largess Company (1965), 1 Mich App 421.
Viewing the pleadings and opening statement in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, this Court is constrained to hold that the judgment of the lower court was correct.
Affirmed. Costs to defendants.