Marchello Hill v. J. Cavagnolo

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DEBRA B. FORD, UNPUBLISHED June 20, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, 12:09 PM v No. 371805 Calhoun Circuit Court CITY OF MARSHALL, BAILEY EXCAVATING, LC No. 2020-000348-NO INC., LIBERTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, doing business as CIOFFI & SON CONSTRUCTION, and GIVE-EM A BRAKE SAFETY, LLC, Defendants, and CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and REDFORD and MARIANI, JJ. BOONSTRA, P.J. (concurring). I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to offer additional reasons to affirm the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Consumers Energy Company. Plaintiff continues to advance the argument that her claim against Consumers sounded in ordinary negligence. But whether plaintiff’s claim sounds in negligence or in premises liability is determined by considering the plaintiff's complaint as a whole, regardless of the labels attached to the allegations by the plaintiff. Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg Towne Houses Coop, Inc, 336 Mich App 616, 625; 971 NW2d 716 (2012).. And the nature of a claim (as either premises liability or ordinary negligence) is generally determined by the nature of the hazard itself. As we held in Ford -1- v City of Marshall, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 13, 2022 (Docket No. 355541) (Ford I), p 4: On appeal, plaintiff argues that her claim sounded in ordinary negligence rather than premises liability because Consumers lacked possession and control of the sidewalk on the date of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. As already noted, the question of whether a claim sounds in premises liability or ordinary negligence hinges on the nature of the hazard. Buhalis, 296 Mich App at 692.[1] . . . [W]hether Consumers had possession and control of the sidewalk had no bearing on the nature of plaintiff’s claim, i.e., whether it sounded in ordinary negligence or premises liability. This Court has held that, in certain situations, a contractor whose negligent workmanship creates a hazardous condition on the land may be held liable not only to its contractee, but also in negligence to third parties who later incur foreseeable harm upon encountering the hazard. See Kapalczynski v Globe Construction Co, 19 Mich App 396, 403 n 10; 172 NW2d 852 (1969) (citing 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 385, p 293); Feaster v Hous, 137 Mich App 783, 789; 359 NW2d 219 (1984). This potential for liability arises after the contracted-for work has been completed and accepted by the premises possessor, and is based on the contractor’s negligent performance of a contractual duty. See Feaster, 137 Mich App at 789. By contrast, contractors who are currently engaged in contractual duties with respect to the land on behalf of the premises possessor/owner are “subject to the same liability, and enjoy[] the same freedom from liability, as though [they] were the possessor[s] of the land . . . .” Finazzo v Fire Equipment Co, 323 Mich App 620, 626; 918 NW2d 200 (2018).2 Effectively, the premises possessor has “loaned” possessory rights to the contractor. Id. at 627-628, citing Orel v Uni-Rak Sales, Co, Inc, 454 Mich 564, 567 n 2; 563 NW2d 241 (1997) and Quinlivan v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, Inc, 395 Mich 244, 269; 235 NW2d 732 (1972) (“This ‘loaning’ gives a quantum of ‘control and possession’ to another party.”). This Court in Finazzo noted that “our Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the principles underlying the rule set forth in 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, §384, p 289,” which provides: One who on behalf of the possessor of land erects a structure or creates any other condition on the land is subject to the same liability, and enjoys the same freedom from liability, as though he were the possessor of the land, for physical harm caused to others upon and outside of the land by the dangerous character of the structure 1 Buhalis held that “If the plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, the action sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the pla

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED June 27, 2025 LATONYA BURTON, ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK Plaintiff Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA v.) No. 24-ICA-339 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha Cnty. Case No. CC-20-2024-C-462) WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS and JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants Below, Respondents MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Latonya Burton appeals the July 26, 2024, order from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granting Respondent West Virginia Division of Corrections (“WVDCR”) and John and Jane Does’ (collectively “the Does”) Motion to Dismiss and denying Ms. Burton’s July 22, 2024, motion moving the circuit court to reconsider its ruling dismissing all Ms. Burton’s claims against the Does. WVDCR and the Does filed a response.1 Ms. Burton filed a reply. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ms. Burton was incarcerated at Eastern Regional Jail (“ERJ”) located in Martinsburg, West Virginia. ERJ is a correctional facility owned and operated by WVDCR. On April 11, 2022, Ms. Burton alleges she was being loaded into a prison transportation van to be taken from ERJ to Potomac Highlands Regional Jail and Correctional Facility (“PHRJ”) for a one-night layover before she reached Lakin Correctional Center and Jail (“Lakin”). During the process of being loaded into a transport van, Ms. Burton alleges both her arms and legs were shackled. The complaint alleges “[t]he corrections officer did not help the plaintiff into the van and did brace her from behind as she attempted to lift her body into the van while shackled.” Ms. Burton further alleges she struck her head on a 1 Ms. Burton is represented by Joseph H. Spano, Jr., Esq. WVDCR and the Does are represented by Matthew R. Whitler, Esq. 1 metal pole while trying to enter the van, fell backwards down metal steps, and fell headfirst onto the ground suffering injury. She alleges the corrections officer moved out of the way and allowed her to fall. Finally, she alleges she did not receive medical care while she was at PHRJ or Lakin. On April 18, 2024, Ms. Burton filed her complaint against WVDCR and John and Jane Does. The complaint alleges a claim for negligence against all respondents, a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against all respondents, and a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against WVDCR only. On May 20, 2024, respondents filed a motion to dismiss arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity. Ms. Burton filed a response and respondents filed a reply. At the July 12, 2024, hearing on the motion, Ms. Burton’s counsel clarified that although the complaint states that the unidentified officer did “brace [Ms. Burton] from behind as she attempted to lift her body into the van while shackled,” it was intended to state that Ms. Burton was not braced during her attempt to enter the van. After hearing arguments from the parties, the circuit court found that the unknown correctional officer engaged in discretionary acts and that Ms. Burton failed to plead that the respondents were in violation of a clearly established right. The circuit court then granted qualified immunity to all respondents, dismissed all three counts of the complaint, and granted the motion to dismiss. That same day, Ms. Burton filed a motion moving the circuit court to reconsider its ruling to dismiss the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against the Does. On July 22, 2024, after respondents submitted their proposed order, Ms. Burton filed a renewed objection to the dismissal. On July 26, 2024, the circuit court entered a written order granting the motion to dismiss on all claims with prejudice and denying Ms. Burton’s objections because there was no cause to reconsider its ruling. It is from this order that Ms. Burton now appeals. This Court reviews a circuit court’s rulings on a motion to dismiss under a de novo standard of review. Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995) (“Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CONCEPTS, INC. § and ELOY CANALES, No. 08-24-00036-CV § Appellants, Appeal from the § v. 131st District Court § of Bexar County, Texas BRIAN RAMIREZ, § Appellee. (TC# 2021CI04603) § JUDGMENT The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the judgment. We therefore reverse and render judgment in favor of Transportation Concepts Inc., on the theory of direct liability alleged against it. We reverse and remand for new trial on Brian Ramirez’s claim against Eloy Canales. We further order that Appellants recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June 2025. GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret) Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)