Christopher Sojka, J v. Bovis Lend
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13998
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sojka sustained severe eye injuries repairing safety netting on the Trump Tower site; he wore safety glasses that did not fit properly, allowing debris to enter his eye.
- Bovis Lend Lease, as construction manager, moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to provide a safe workplace and no breach since no knowledge eyewear was inadequate.
- Sojka did not address the eyewear argument in his response, leading the district court to grant summary judgment on that point.
- Sojka’s Rule 56.1 statement and memorandum presented additional theories of breach beyond eyewear, including failure to stop wind-damaged work and inadequate supervision.
- The district court rejected Sojka’s additional theories as untethered to the summary judgment motion, prompting appellate review for abuse of discretion and de novo law application.
- The Seventh Circuit held that a dispute of material fact remained regarding wind conditions and supervision, so summary judgment was inappropriate and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed beyond eyewear. | Sojka had additional breach theories supported by Rule 56.1. | Bovis urged dismissal limited to eyewear breach; other theories not properly linked. | Yes; factual disputes remained. |
| Whether Sojka conceded the eyewear issue and whether that foreclosed summary judgment. | Sojka conceded eyewear insufficiency but raised other theories. | Conceded eyewear point demanded dismissal. | No; other disputed issues remained. |
| Whether the district court properly applied Rule 56.1 and considered Sojka’s Rule 56.1 facts. | Rule 56.1 facts properly raised material disputes. | Facts outside memorandum were insufficient without argument. | Misapplied; Rule 56.1 is essential and not a trap. |
| Whether Bovis owed a duty of care as project manager when it retained control and selected McHugh. | Bovis exercised control and entrusted work to McHugh. | O’Connell limits liability when no entrustment. | The district court erred; Bovis’s control and selection supported duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Vital Prods., Inc., 641 F.3d 253 (7th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards; de novo review)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (intent and burden on nonmovant to show genuine issue of fact)
- Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, 526 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2008) (nonmovant bears responsibility to identify evidence to oppose)
- Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 56.1 obligation; not mere formality)
- Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994) (identifying facts and legal arguments for summary judgment)
- Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment factual requirements; local rule usage)
- Mesman v. Crane Pro Servs., 409 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2005) (safety standard evidence; not conclusive)
- Original Ballet Russe v. Ballet Theatre, 133 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1943) (aggregate of facts; one claim with multiple theories)
- Florek v. Village of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment; Rule 56.1 consideration)