Daniels v. Venta Corp.
2022 IL App (2d) 210244
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background:
- In August 1996 ABC (later Venta) — a wire manufacturer leasing part of Sycamore Industrial Park (owned by SIPA) — directed removal of scrap from a Quonset hut on SIPA property. ABC was not licensed to remove asbestos.
- Manpower supplied temporary labor; Darnell Daniels (a Manpower employee) was assigned by ABC to clear the Quonset hut debris from Aug–Oct 1996 without being told it contained asbestos or given proper protective equipment.
- After learning the material contained asbestos, Daniels received only a paper mask and later became a full‑time ABC employee until 2003. He was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2017.
- Daniels sued SIPA, ABC/Venta, and Boey (partner in ABC and SIPA) alleging premises liability (SIPA), secondary premises liability (Boey), negligence and willful/wanton misconduct (Venta), and an intentional tort (Venta).
- The trial court dismissed the sixth amended complaint with prejudice (finding no duty by SIPA, and that Venta’s negligence/wanton counts were barred by the Workers’ Compensation/Occupational Diseases Acts and that the intentional‑tort claim was insufficient). The estate appealed; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Venta's negligence and willful/wanton claims are barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation / Occupational Diseases Acts | Daniels: exclusive remedy does not apply because no enforceable contract existed for the illegal asbestos removal (ABC was unlicensed) | Venta: Acts bar common‑law tort claims because the injuries arose in the course of employment/borrowed‑employee relationship | Reversed: exclusive remedy did not apply because the underlying contract/assignment was illegal (unlicensed asbestos removal), so employee could sue ABC/Venta |
| Whether the intentional‑tort claim against Venta sufficiently pleads specific intent to injure to escape the exclusive remedy | Daniels: alleged ABC/decisionmakers knew asbestos would injure and deliberately concealed that fact and withheld protections intending harm | Venta: allegations amount to knowledge/substantial certainty only and are conclusory | Reversed: complaint adequately alleged specific intent to injure (sufficient at pleading stage) |
| Whether SIPA owed Daniels a duty under premises‑liability principles | Daniels: SIPA invited ABC to remove asbestos, made removal directives, and (because of SIPA/ABC relatedness) knew ABC would not warn; Daniels was a business invitee | SIPA: it did not invite Daniels personally; ABC invited him so SIPA had no duty | Reversed: SIPA owed a duty under Restatement §343 to invitees and relatedness/control made injury foreseeable; dismissal improper |
| Whether secondary liability claims against Boey are premature | Daniels: Boey was sued for secondary liability tied to SIPA and parties agreed Boey would be liable if SIPA cannot satisfy judgment | Boey: secondary liability not ripe until liability against SIPA is established | Reversed: claim against Boey not premature; may proceed alongside SIPA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharp v. Gallagher, 95 Ill. 2d 322 (1983) (Workers’ Compensation Act replaces common‑law employer liability; exclusive remedy principle)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (1990) (describes quid pro quo and exclusive remedy under Act)
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229 (1980) (elements to escape exclusive remedy: not accidental, not from employment, not in course of employment, or not compensable)
- A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 82 Ill. 2d 341 (1980) (borrowed‑employee test: control + contract of hire)
- Hartline v. Celotex Corp., 272 Ill. App. 3d 952 (1995) (intentional‑tort exception requires deliberate act with specific intent to injure)
- Copass v. Illinois Power Co., 211 Ill. App. 3d 205 (1991) (knowledge or substantial certainty alone insufficient for intentional‑tort exception)
- Wells v. IFR Engineering Co., 247 Ill. App. 3d 43 (1993) (similar holding on substantial‑certainty allegations)
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 274 (2007) (related‑entity control can support imposition of a duty when corporate actions foreseeably endanger others)
- Chicago Econ. Fuel Gas Co. v. Myers, 168 Ill. 139 (1897) (relatedness and retained control can make one entity liable for harms caused by another)