landlords, repairpersons, etc.) would need to turn off utilities that involve any risk of hazard (e.g., gas, electricity) whenever they leave a property. These unnecessary shutoffs would result in burdens and inconveniences to businesses and the general public. Courts in other states have repeatedly found that in the absence of actual control, a property owner owes no duty to a contractor or a contractor’s employee who suffers injury from being electrocuted on the property owner’s premises. Merritt v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 875 F.2d 603, 605-07 (7th Cir.1989) (rejecting the claim of a contractor’s employee that the premises owner had a duty to deenergize the lines where the contractor worked); Wells v. Gen. Elec. Co., 807 F.Supp. 1202, 1211 (D.Md.199 775 N.Y.S.2d 385, 386 (2004) (<HOLDING>). As we noted above, this case is basically the
holding that an employee could not be bound to an arbitration agreement that had been mailed to him by his employer acceptance of which was indicated by employees continued tenure with the company where there was no evidence in the record that the employee had received read or understood the document holding that a landowner owed no duty of care to a contractors employee in the situation posed by the parties holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law holding a company that serviced a coffee maker owed no duty to an employee who received an electric shock while attempting to clean the coffee maker