plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries to a contract which provided that a class of persons including them "shall not be assigned to perform work that entails a significant degree of risk to life or health.”
How later courts described this case
- plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries to a contract which provided that a class of persons including them "shall not be assigned to perform work that entails a significant degree of risk to life or health.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Criticized by Kerbersky v. Northern Michigan University, 458 Mich. 525 (1998)
We expressly reject dicta in Dudek and Dagen v Village of Baldwin, 159 Mich App 620, 625; 406 NW2d 889 (1987),10 suggesting that construction workers may be barred from invoking the public building exception because they are not members of the public.
The opinion
Shepherd, J.
(concurring). I am satisfied that the *631 building in question was a public building. However, there was no testimony that the roof itself was defective and consequently I conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity. I agree with the balance of the majority opinion.