Henderson v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.
848 F. Supp. 2d 847
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Henderson, an ironworker employed by USA Hoist, was injured on the Trump Tower project in Chicago.
- Henderson sued Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. for negligent entrustment under Restatement § 414.
- Bovis, as construction manager, argued it could not be liable under § 414 because it did not entrust work to USA Hoist.
- Construction Management Agreement; 401 North Wabash Venture owned the project and hired Bovis; 401 retained ultimate subcontractor hiring authority.
- Bovis did not enter a trade contract with USA Hoist and only signed 401’s contract as 401’s agent; discovery record on Bovis’s actual on-site actions is sparse.
- Court granted summary judgment for Bovis, finding no entrustment under § 414 and that Henderson failed to show Bovis actually selected USA Hoist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bovis entrusts work to USA Hoist under § 414 | Henderson argues the contract and on-site role show entrustment | Bovis contends it did not actually select USA Hoist and lacked final hiring authority | No entrustment; § 414 not satisfied |
| Whether entrustment can be proved by contractual provisions alone | Contractual duties to solicit bids show entrustment | Contract alone insufficient without actual selection or hiring | Contractual provisions alone insufficient; no actual selection shown |
| Whether Bovis’s control over the work satisfies the § 414 control/prong | If entrusted, Bovis’s retained control could satisfy § 414 | Record shows limited on-site control beyond supervision | Control alone not relevant absent entrustment; no entrustment found |
| Whether O’Connell v. Turner Constr. Co. supports entrustment here | O’Connell supports entrustment via contractor assistance in bids | O’Connell’s facts are distinguishable and not controlling | O’Connell not controlling; no entrustment shown here |
| Whether Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. supports entrustment | Sojka suggests entrustment exists | Sojka’s dicta not controlling and not binding here | Sojka is not controlling; no entrustment shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguirre v. Turner Constr. Co., 582 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2009) (establishes general rule of § 414 liability and control prerequisite)
- Aguirre I, 501 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses entrustment and control in § 414 context)
- O’Connell v. Turner Constr. Co., 409 Ill.App.3d 819 (Ill. App. 2011) (entrustment requires actual selection of subcontractors; contract alone insufficient)
- Madden v. Paschen, 395 Ill.App.3d 362 (Ill. App. 2009) (addressed entrustment in Illinois state court context)
- Wilfong v. L.J. Dodd Constr., 401 Ill.App.3d 1044 (Ill. App. 2010) (discusses control/entrustment interplay under § 414)
- Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Stone Container Corp., 323 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2003) (persuasive precedent on state-law entrustment analysis)