Court Opinion

ID: 9741154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:50:25.008199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.604817
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with Justice Riley’s partial dissent and partial concurrence and concur with her conclusion, regarding part in of the lead opinion, that, as a matter of law, there was not a “high degree of risk” to Bohnert presented by the overhead electrical lines that would render defendant Carrington Homes, the general contractor, liable. Therefore, I agree with Justice Riley that we should reverse the Court of Appeals decision and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for this general contractor, Carrington Homes.
I write separately because I disagree with and would not follow Funk v General Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91; 220 NW2d 641 (1974), and its progeny Plummer v Bechtel Construction, 440 Mich 646; 489 NW2d 66 (1992). The lead opinion’s disposition of this case on the basis of Funk exemplifies Justice Coleman’s concerns about the unwarranted expansion of tort law, which were voiced in her dissent in Funk, as follows:
*679The majority opinion creates concepts which represent a significant departure from time tested theories of tort liability. .. . General contractors must now be prepared to assume responsibility for any iryury received by the employee of a subcontractor, no matter how negligent the employee may be. [Id. at 116.]
Riley J., concurred with Weaver, J.