Cain v. Contarino
10 N.E.3d 929
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Cain was injured August 25, 2006, while setting roof trusses for his employer Hawkins Construction on a CH general contractor project at 407 Harvest Glenn.
- Harvest Glenn LLC owned the site; Contarino owned CH and was owner of Harvest Glenn LLC; HC performed subcontracting framing work for CH.
- The incident occurred during hand-setting of trusses on a single-story garage; no safety harnesses or scaffolding were used.
- CH’s contract with HC stated that HC bore sole responsibility for jobsite safety and that CH would not supervise HC’s means and methods.
- Cain asserted duties under Restatement sections 414 (retained control) and 343 (dangerous condition on land) against CH.
- CH moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not retain control and was not a land possessor; the trial court granted summary judgment for CH on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CH owe Cain a duty under section 414? | Cain argues CH retained control over HC’s safety/means of work, creating a duty. | CH did not retain control; the contract assigns safety to HC and HC controls its own means and methods. | No duty under section 414. |
| Does CH owe Cain a duty under section 343 as a land possessor? | CH possessed/controlled the land to invitees and should have protected against a dangerous condition. | Harvest Glenn LLC owned the land; CH did not possess the land; no duty under §343. | No duty under section 343. |
| Did CH’s control over safety or crane provision create retained control to impose a duty | Contract language and conduct show CH controlled safety/means, including crane use. | Contract language and conduct do not show retained control; safety was HC’s duty and crane provision was not mandated. | No retained-control duty established; no duty to provide a crane. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bokodi v. Foster Wheeler Robbins, Inc., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (2000) (extensive safety control supports retained control finding)
- Wilkerson v. Paul Schwendener, Inc., 379 Ill. App. 3d 491 (2008) (retained control often requires more than general supervision)
- Aguirre v. Turner Construction Co., 501 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2007) (extensive general contractor safety program may create duty)
- Joyce v. Mastri, 371 Ill. App. 3d 64 (2007) (general right to enforce safety does not equal retained control)
- Ross v. Dae Julie, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (2003) (safety monitoring alone not enough for retained control)
- Fris v. Personal Products Co., 255 Ill. App. 3d 916 (1994) (distinguishes level of contractor control required)
- Diebert v. Bauer Brothers Construction Co., 141 Ill. 2d 430 (1990) (possession concepts not central to this case)
- Ramirez v. FCL Builders, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 123663 (1st Cir. 2014) (retained-control analyses vary by facts; see doctrine)
- Garcia v. Wooton Construction, Ltd., 387 Ill. App. 3d 497 (2008) (crane control can support retained-control theory)