Fonseca v. Clark Constuction Group, LLC
2014 IL App (1st) 130308
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Fonseca (drywall subcontractor employee) tripped on electrical conduit left in a hallway while carrying a drywall sheet and was injured; Maron Electric was the electrical subcontractor and RG Construction was Fonseca’s employer.
- Clark Construction was general contractor for the 300 N. LaSalle project; contracts allocated responsibilities and included safety provisions and a safety manual requiring subcontractors to follow Clark’s safety policies.
- Maron subcontract specified Maron would assume responsibility for its work, supervision, materials, and daily cleanup of debris; Clark retained general supervisory rights and maintained a project safety manager.
- Depositions and affidavit evidence showed Maron supervised and cleaned its own work areas, held toolbox talks, and Clark personnel rarely (if ever) stopped or directly inspected Maron’s day-to-day work.
- Fonseca sued Clark and Maron; the trial court granted summary judgment for Clark under Rule 304(a), finding Clark did not retain the requisite control to create a duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark owed Fonseca a duty under Restatement § 414 | Fonseca: Clark contract and safety program show Clark retained control over means/methods and safety, creating a duty to exercise reasonable care | Clark: Maron subcontract made Maron responsible for its work and cleanup; Clark’s rights were general supervision only and it took no active role in Maron’s operative details | Court: No duty — Clark did not retain control over incidental/operative details to trigger § 414 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196 (2008) (summary judgment standard and duty analysis)
- Rangel v. Brookhaven Constructors, Inc., 307 Ill. App. 3d 835 (1999) (Illinois adoption of Restatement § 414 principles)
- Madden v. F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielson, Inc., 395 Ill. App. 3d 362 (2009) (mere existence of safety program insufficient to trigger § 414)
- Joyce v. Mastri, 371 Ill. App. 3d 64 (2007) (summary judgment improper where general contractor retained or exercised safety control)
- Wilkerson v. Paul H. Schwendener, Inc., 379 Ill. App. 3d 491 (2008) (general contractor’s affirmative, specific safety directives supported § 414 liability)
- Bokodi v. Foster Wheeler Robbins, Inc., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (2000) (general contractor went to great lengths to control subcontractor safety, supporting duty)
- Calderon v. Residential Homes of America, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 333 (2008) (general rights to stop work or inspect are not enough alone to establish control)