Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
2016 IL 118984
| Ill. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Union Pacific (UP) sold three abandoned bridges to Happ’s, Inc. under a Purchase and Removal Agreement identifying Happ’s as an independent contractor responsible for “all superintendence,” labor, tools, and materials.
- Happ’s hired/partnered with Carney Group (Chicago Explosive Services); Patrick Carney (plaintiff) was an employee of Carney Group and was called to the Polk Street bridge job to help thread crane cables.
- During a crane lift on July 31, 2006, an unsecured west girder fell; plaintiff slid under it on a steel transition plate and suffered catastrophic injuries (amputation of both legs below the knees).
- Plaintiff sued UP alleging (1) UP retained control of the work (Restatement §414), (2) negligent hiring of Happ’s (Restatement §411), and (3) UP’s premises liability for a dangerous condition on its land (Restatement §343).
- Trial court granted UP summary judgment; Illinois Appellate Court reversed as to factual issues; Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, affirming summary judgment for UP on all three theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retained control (§414): whether UP retained control over Happ’s operations so as to be directly liable | Carney: contract language, engineering notes, UP employees’ involvement (including post‑accident suggestions) show UP retained supervisory/control sufficient to create duty | UP: contract expressly left “all superintendence” to Happ’s; reserved rights (inspect, stop work, safety suggestions) are insufficient as a matter of law to prove retained control | Held for UP — no genuine issue: contract and record show UP did not retain the operative control §414 requires; supervisory/safety suggestions insufficient to create duty |
| Negligent hiring (§411): whether UP negligently selected Happ’s and whether plaintiff (a contractor’s/subcontractor’s employee) is a “third person” protected by §411 | Carney: Happ’s lacked experience removing large steel through‑plate girder bridges; UP did not inquire into Happ’s experience despite risks—so UP negligently hired | UP: even if hiring was negligent, plaintiff was an employee of Carney Group (subcontractor) and therefore not a “third person” under §411; worker received workers’ compensation | Mixed: Court found a fact issue whether UP exercised reasonable care in hiring Happ’s (so hiring negligence could be shown), but held plaintiff cannot recover under §411 because as a contractor/subcontractor employee he is not a “third person” entitled to that duty; summary judgment for UP on §411 claim |
| Premises liability (§343): whether the steel transition/floor plate was a dangerous condition of UP’s land and whether UP knew or should have known of the danger | Carney: the plate extended into the roadbed and posed an unreasonable, non‑obvious risk to workers; UP owned the bridge and should have known extent of plate | UP: the plate was part of the bridge sold to Happ’s (“as is”); UP had no use, plans, or reason to know the plate extended as plaintiff claims, so no actual/constructive knowledge and no duty under §343 | Held for UP — no evidence UP knew or should have known the plate extended into the roadbed; summary judgment proper on §343 claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 33 Ill.2d 316 (1965) (recognized Restatement rule that employer who retains control of any part of contractor’s work may be directly liable)
- Gomien v. Wear‑Ever Aluminum, Inc., 50 Ill.2d 19 (1971) (adopted Restatement §411 negligent‑hiring doctrine)
- Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill.2d 456 (1976) (adopted Restatement §343 premises liability rule)
- Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341 (2012) (standards for summary judgment and duty analysis)
- Connaghan v. Caplice, 325 Ill. App. 3d 245 (2001) (a general right to stop work or give safety directions does not establish retained control under §414)