Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

"Inherently Dangerous Activity"
Exception Inapplicable

Bose Emelle
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In Deshambo v. Nielsen, 684 N.W.2d 332, (Mich. 2004), the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the "inherently dangerous activity exception" to the general rule that a landowner who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries that the contractor negligently causes was inapplicable to an employee of an independent contractor. Defendants Norman and Pauline Nielsen hired an independent contractor to perform timber-related tasks on their property, who in turn hired plaintiff Robert DeShambo to help him with the work. See id. In the course of his work, the plaintiff became paralyzed when he was hit by a falling tree. See id. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendants and the independent contractor but subsequently dismissed his case against the independent contractor. See id. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff "could not establish liability under any recognized exception to the general rule precluding the liability of a landowner for injuries that an independent contractor negligently causes." Id. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, a decision that was reversed by The Michigan Court of Appeals on the grounds that a question of fact existed regarding whether defendants reasonably anticipated the risks inherent in logging. See id. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan. See id. On appeal, the court explained that the issue was "'whether the 'inherently dangerous activity' doctrine has been appropriately extended beyond its original application to only third parties to extend liability to landowners and general contractors for injuries to employees of independent contractors doing dangerous work.'" Id. The court reversed the appeals court's decision, holding that "the inherently dangerous activity exception is limited to third parties and does not apply to employees of independent contractors injured while performing dangerous work. Because plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor rather than a third party, the doctrine is inapplicable in this case." Id. at 41.

The case was decided on July 23, 2004; this summary was posted Mar. 21, 2005.