General Contractor and Subcontractor Liability in Michigan

Two rules sit at the start of every serious construction injury case in Michigan. You cannot sue your own employer, because workers’ comp is the exclusive remedy. And a company that hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for that contractor’s negligence. Read together, they seem to say that a job site full of companies owes an injured worker nothing beyond a comp check.

Michigan law says more than that, and our work is proving which path fits your facts. A general contractor that failed its supervisory role can be liable under the common work area doctrine. An owner that effectively ran the job can be held to the same standard. Any subcontractor whose own crew created the hazard can be sued for ordinary negligence; no special doctrine required. And when a subcontractor carried no comp insurance, the statute makes the contractor above it pay the benefits. Which of these applies is decided by contracts, site records, and testimony about who actually ran the job, all of which we gather early. The work injury lawyers at Vahdat Weisman Law build these cases throughout Michigan. Call (734) 469-4994 for a free consultation. You pay no attorney fee unless we recover compensation.

The Common Work Area Doctrine: Suing the General Contractor

Since the Michigan Supreme Court’s Funk decision in 1974, a general contractor can be liable to an injured construction worker when four things are proven: the GC failed to take reasonable steps within its supervisory and coordinating role; the danger was readily observable and avoidable; it posed a high degree of risk; and a significant number of workers were exposed to it in a common work area, meaning an area where employees of multiple subcontractors work or will work. General contractors are not insurers of everything on site. They are responsible for the serious, correctable hazards that threaten the workforce broadly: an open shaft that trades pass every day, missing perimeter protection on a floor several crews occupy, an energized line running through an active work area.

How the fight actually goes matters as much as the elements. Defense lawyers attack each one, and the significant number requirement in particular has defeated cases; Michigan courts have held that exposure of a handful of workers from a single subcontractor is not enough. Precision about the hazard matters too. In Latham v Barton Malow, the Supreme Court explained that the relevant danger was not working at height, which is ordinary construction, but working at height without fall protection. Defining the specific avoidable hazard and then proving which trades were exposed to it, through manpower logs, schedules, badge records, and testimony, is the actual work of these cases. The doctrine remains fully alive: in 2024, in El-Jamaly v Kirco Manix, a case about construction equipment reaching a power line, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected efforts to add new requirements, holding that exposed workers need not all be present at the same moment and that no prior accident is required.

One more route the doctrine does not limit: a general contractor is always answerable for its own active negligence. When the GC’s own crew creates the hazard, removes protection, or directs an unsafe operation, that is an ordinary negligence claim, and the four elements above never enter into it.

Owners, Retained Control, and Premises Claims

Property owners usually stand behind the independent-contractor rule; they hired a GC precisely so someone else would run the job. Michigan’s retained control principle addresses the owner who did not let go. Under Ormsby v Capital Welding, an owner that keeps enough control over the work, directing how it is done, controlling safety decisions, and holding authority beyond checking progress and paying invoices, effectively steps into the general contractor’s shoes, and the same common work area analysis then applies to it. Retained control is not a shortcut around the four elements; it is the reason an owner can be measured against them at all.

A different theory applies when the injury came from a dangerous condition of the property itself rather than from the construction work. Those are premises liability claims, and they became meaningfully stronger for injured people in 2023, when Kandil-Elsayed held that the open and obvious character of a hazard no longer bars the claim outright and instead goes to comparative fault.

Subcontractor Against Subcontractor: The Most Direct Claim

On a multi-employer site, the most direct defendant is often the other company whose crew hurt you: the electrical sub that left an unmarked line hot, the excavator that undermined the wall your crew worked beside, the trade that cut an opening and left it uncovered. Michigan law holds that a contractor owes a common-law duty of reasonable care to the people around its work, separate from anything its contract says, a principle the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Loweke in 2011 and again in July 2026 in Bowerman v Red Oak Management, where a jury was allowed to find a contractor negligent for leaving a trench it dug uncovered and unmarked, nine days after finishing its work and leaving the site. The contract still matters as evidence of who undertook what, but it is not a shield. These are ordinary negligence claims, the backbone of our third-party work injury practice, and they extend to defective equipment cases against manufacturers and suppliers, covered on our defective machinery page.

The Comp Layer: MCL 418.171 and the Uninsured Subcontractor

The comp statute adds one more protection on the benefits side. Under MCL 418.171, a contractor that engages a subcontractor that is not carrying required workers’ comp coverage becomes liable for comp benefits to that subcontractor’s injured employees. A worker hurt while working for a small sub with a lapsed policy is not left with nothing; the principal stands in as the statutory employer. There is a trade-off built in: the principal that pays benefits this way generally acquires the same immunity from suit that an employer has, which can remove what looked like a promising lawsuit target. Sorting out who is actually the employer, especially where staffing agencies, labor brokers, or workers labeled as 1099 contractors are involved, is one of the first things we do, because it determines both where benefits come from and who can still be sued.

What This Framework Cannot Do

Suing your own employer remains nearly impossible. Michigan’s intentional tort exception requires proof that the employer specifically intended injury, or actually knew injury was certain and willfully disregarded that knowledge, and courts apply it in only the rarest cases. Coworkers are protected as well. A hazard that only your own small crew ever faced may fail the common work area elements even if the GC should have caught it. A MIOSHA citation against the GC is evidence, not a verdict: the fine goes to the state, a violation is evidence of negligence rather than negligence in itself, and the citation’s real value is the investigation file of photographs, measurements, and statements behind it. And expect the defense to name your immune employer as a nonparty at fault, asking the jury to assign it a share of blame that reduces what the other defendants pay; anticipating that argument shapes how we build the proof.

When the facts do fit, the difference is substantial. Comp pays capped wage-loss benefits, generally 80 percent of after-tax average weekly wage up to $1,201 per week for 2026 injuries, and nothing for pain and suffering. A civil claim allows recovery of the full wage loss, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering that can be proven, reduced by any share of fault assigned to you, with pain-and-suffering damages barred only if your fault exceeds fifty percent. For a tradesperson whose career ends at 35, that is the difference between a capped weekly check and an accounting of what was actually lost.

Why Choose Vahdat Weisman Law?

These are document cases, and we treat them that way from the first week: the contracts that allocated safety responsibility, the daily logs and manpower records that show who knew what and who was exposed, the org chart that shows who could have stopped the work. We build that record before site conditions change; we watch the one-year mark after which the comp carrier gains the right to file your third-party claim in your name, and we run the lien math, reimbursement, shared litigation expenses, and the future-benefit credit before recommending any settlement, so you know what you will actually keep. Founding partners Kara E. Weisman and Jordan S. Vahdat have each been honored as Super Lawyers Rising Stars, and our attorneys are members of the State Bar of Michigan and active in the Michigan Association for Justice. We advance case costs, our phones are answered 24/7, and we serve clients in English and Spanish from our Livonia office. See the hazards these doctrines cover: falls from heights, scaffolding accidents, crane accidents, and trench collapses.

Frequently Asked Questions

• I work for a subcontractor. Can I sue the general contractor? Sometimes. If the common work area elements fit- a readily observable and avoidable danger, high risk, a significant number of exposed workers, and a GC that failed its supervisory role- yes. If the GC’s own crew created the hazard, an ordinary negligence claim may exist without those elements. What applies is a fact investigation, not something an adjuster’s phone call can answer.
• The GC says my employer was responsible for safety under the contract. Does that end my case? No. Contracts are evidence of who controlled what, and they matter, but a general contractor’s supervisory role under the common work area doctrine is not erased by assigning safety duties on paper, and other companies owe ordinary care regardless of what their contracts say.
• My employer had no workers’ comp insurance. Am I out of luck? No. Michigan law makes the contractor that engaged your uninsured employer liable for your comp benefits. Be aware that the company forced to pay benefits this way generally becomes immune from a lawsuit, which is one more reason the early sorting of who-is-who matters; we investigate whether other companies on the site bear lawsuit liability at the same time.
• Can I sue the property owner? In two situations, mainly. If the owner retained enough control to effectively act as the general contractor, the common work area analysis applies to it. If the injury arose from a dangerous condition of the premises itself, a premises claim may exist, and since 2023, an open and obvious hazard no longer defeats that claim automatically. Owner cases rise or fall on evidence of actual involvement, which contracts and correspondence usually reveal.
• Does a MIOSHA citation against the GC win my case? It helps, but it does not decide anything. Citations are issued under safety standards and can be contested or aimed at your own immune employer; civil liability is decided under negligence doctrines. The investigation file behind a citation- photographs, measurements, witness statements- is often the best early evidence of what the site looked like, and we request it early.

Talk to a Michigan Construction Injury Lawyer Today

The companies on your job site allocated their responsibilities in contracts before work began. After an injury, someone has to read those contracts on your side, and the sooner that happens, the more of the record survives. Call Vahdat Weisman Law at (734) 469-4994 or contact us online for a free consultation. Available 24/7, serving all of Michigan, with Spanish-speaking staff.

Dedicated to Justice. Devoted to You. Winning for Your Future.

This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee future success.