Construction Accident Complaint - Michigan

CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT COMPLAINT

Table of Contents

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Premises Liability
7. Worksite Safety Allegations Supporting Count I
8. Count IV — Product Liability
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. State-Specific Notes

Caption

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]
STATE OF MICHIGAN

CASE NO. [____]

Parties

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] resides at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Michigan [ZIP CODE], and was employed as a [JOB TITLE/TRADE].

2. Defendant [GENERAL CONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS], the general contractor.

3. Defendant [SUBCONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

4. Defendant [PROPERTY OWNER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE/INDIVIDUAL] at [ADDRESS].

5. Defendant [EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 600.605.

7. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to MCL 600.1629 because the accident occurred in this county.

Factual Allegations

8. The construction project at [PROJECT ADDRESS], [CITY], Michigan, was managed by Defendant General Contractor.

9. Plaintiff was employed by [EMPLOYER NAME] and performing work on [DATE OF ACCIDENT].

10. On [DATE OF ACCIDENT], Plaintiff was [DESCRIPTION OF WORK ACTIVITY] when [DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT].

11. Plaintiff sustained injuries including [DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES].

12. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against Plaintiff's employer (MCL 418.131). This action targets third parties under MCL 418.827.

Count I — Negligence

13. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

14. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care.

15. Defendants breached their duty by:

☐ Failing to provide fall protection
☐ Failing to maintain scaffolding and platforms
☐ Failing to secure hazardous areas
☐ Failing to provide PPE
☐ Failing to implement safety plans
☐ Failing to train workers
☐ Failing to conduct inspections
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Failing to coordinate subcontractor work
☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC NEGLIGENCE]

16. Defendants' negligence proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Count II — Premises Liability

17. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

18. Defendant Property Owner owed Plaintiff a duty as an invitee under James v. Alberts, 464 Mich. 12 (2001) — to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of known or discoverable dangers.

19. Defendant Property Owner breached this duty by:

☐ Failing to maintain safe premises
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Retaining control over site safety
☐ [OTHER BREACHES]

20. The premises condition proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Worksite Safety Allegations Supporting Count I

21. Plaintiff incorporates these allegations into the negligence claim in Count I; they do not assert a separate damages claim under OSHA or MIOSHA.

22. Defendant [NAME] controlled [SPECIFIC WORK OR CONDITION] and owed Plaintiff an independent duty under [IDENTIFY THE SUPPORTED MICHIGAN NEGLIGENCE BASIS].

23. At [PLACE AND TIME], Defendant [DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC UNSAFE ACT OR OMISSION], exposing Plaintiff to [HAZARD] and causing [INJURY]. [If an occupational safety standard covered this Defendant and activity, identify the Michigan or federal provision, its applicability, and the supporting facts.]

24. The pleaded conduct supports the Count I negligence theory to the extent Michigan law permits; determine the applicable standard's evidentiary role before relying on it.

Count IV — Product Liability

25. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

26. Defendant Manufacturer designed, manufactured, and/or distributed [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION].

27. The product was defective due to:

☐ Design defect
☐ Manufacturing defect
☐ Inadequate warnings

28. Under Michigan Products Liability Act (MCL 600.2945 et seq.), Defendant Manufacturer is liable for injuries caused by the defective product.

29. The defective product proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Damages

30. Plaintiff has suffered:

a. Past and future medical expenses;
b. Past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity;
c. Physical pain and suffering;
d. Mental anguish and emotional distress;
e. Permanent disability and disfigurement;
f. Loss of enjoyment of life;
g. Loss of consortium (if applicable);
h. Exemplary damages where warranted;
i. All other compensatory damages.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff will file a separate written jury demand and pay the jury fee within the time required by MCR 2.508(B)(1). This Complaint alone is not the jury demand.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
[BAR NUMBER]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], Michigan [ZIP CODE]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

Attorney for Plaintiff

Date: [__/__/____]

State-Specific Notes — Michigan

Workers' Compensation Exclusivity (MCL 418.131):

• Exclusive remedy against employer; third-party claims under MCL 418.827
• Employer/insurer has subrogation rights against third-party recovery

Comparative Fault (MCL 600.2959):

• Modified comparative fault with 51% bar
• At 51%+ fault: economic damages still reduced proportionally, but NO noneconomic damages
• Below 51%: all damages reduced by plaintiff's fault percentage

Statute of Limitations:

• Personal injury: THREE YEARS (MCL 600.5805(2))
• Wrongful death: MCL 600.5805(2) generally supplies three years after death or injury, but claim-specific periods/repose and MCL 600.5852 must be analyzed

Damage Caps:

• Noneconomic damages in ordinary personal-injury claims: no general dollar cap identified in MCL 600.1483; that section caps claims alleging medical malpractice, and other claim-specific limits must be checked
• No cap on economic damages

OSHA State Plan:

• Michigan has MIOSHA — an approved state plan
• MIOSHA covers most Michigan workplaces; federal OSHA covers exceptions listed by OSHA

Court System:

• Circuit Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction

Sources and References:

• MCL 600.2959 — Comparative Fault
• MCL 418.131 — Workers' Comp Exclusivity
• MCL 418.827 — Third-Party Claims