Hastings v. JEFCO Equipment Company, Inc.
994 N.E.2d 1033
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Deirdre Hastings, an ironworker employed by Area Erectors, was struck and injured when steel beams being hoisted by a 90‑ton crane fell; the crane was owned by defendant Jefco Equipment and operated by Jefco employee Greg Windbiel.
- Hastings sued Jefco for negligence and premises liability; after discovery Jefco moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Jefco, concluding Windbiel was a "borrowed employee" of Area and therefore Jefco bore no vicarious liability; Hastings appealed only the negligence ruling.
- The written crane rental agreement between Jefco and Area included an indemnification clause stating lessee (Area) would have "exclusive jurisdiction, supervision and control" over the equipment and persons operating it; the agreement was unsigned but the parties acted under it.
- Key factual disputes include who had the right to discharge or substitute the crane operator, who directed the operator’s work (hand signals from Area vs. operator discretion), who paid and provided benefits to Windbiel, and who made lift/configuration decisions on site.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Windbiel was a "borrowed employee" of Area at the time of the accident | Windbiel remained Jefco’s employee; factual disputes exist about control, discharge, substitution, payment, and operator discretion | Windbiel was Area’s borrowed employee because Area exercised control at the site and the rental agreement gave Area "exclusive jurisdiction, supervision and control" | Reversed summary judgment — triable issues of fact exist on borrowed‑employee status; indemnification clause alone does not establish borrowed status as a matter of law |
| Whether the lease’s indemnification/control clause conclusively establishes employment status | Lease not signed but parties performed under it; plaintiff argues clause does not determine employment status by itself | Jefco contends clause shows Area had exclusive control and thus operator was Area’s employee | Court held the indemnity/control language is not dispositive; similar clauses allocate risk and do not, standing alone, create a borrowed‑employee relationship |
| Significance of who paid wages and benefits | Plaintiff: payment by Jefco and benefits weigh against borrowed‑employee finding | Defendant: payment is irrelevant if other control factors favor Area | Court: payment/benefits weigh against finding borrowed status here; who pays is not dispositive but supports Jefco’s position that Windbiel remained Jefco’s employee |
| Whether operator’s obedience to hand signals amounts to employer control | Plaintiff: following hand signals is cooperation, not subordination; operator retained discretion and safety authority | Defendant: reliance on Area’s hand signals and site directions shows Area controlled the operator | Court: obedience to hand signals does not, by itself, show change of masters; facts show both cooperation and operator discretion, leaving control a disputed factual issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Gundich v. Emerson‑Comstock Co., 21 Ill. 2d 117 (1960) (right to control, including power of discharge, is key to master‑servant analysis)
- Kawaguchi v. Gainer, 361 Ill. App. 3d 229 (2005) (factors for borrowed‑employee analysis)
- Robinson v. McDougal‑Hartmann Co., 133 Ill. App. 2d 739 (1971) (renting machinery with operator often indicates continuation of general employment)
- A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 82 Ill. 2d 341 (1980) (wages paid by general employer do not preclude finding of loaned employee)
- Nowicki v. Cannon Steel Erection Co., 711 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (indemnification/control clause alone insufficient to establish borrowed‑employee status)
- Roderick v. Bugge, 584 F. Supp. 626 (D. Mass. 1984) (indemnity provisions are of marginal relevance to borrowed‑servant issue and may contradict intent to create borrowed‑servant relationship)