Lee v. Six Flags Themes Parks, Inc.
10 N.E.3d 444
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Decedent Thomas Lee, a Campanella & Sons employee, fell to his death through an uncovered opening on a 43-foot platform while dismantling Six Flags’ “Splash Water Falls” ride; work was subcontracted and a crane was on site.
- Six Flags contracted with Campanella under a written Agreement that made Campanella responsible for means, methods, safety equipment, and supervision; Six Flags’ documents (Safety Guidelines, Great America Requirements) imposed safety-related requirements and allowed Six Flags to inspect and request corrections.
- Campanella supplied harnesses/lanyards; some workers used them but testimony indicated workers unhooked lanyards to move around the platform; Six Flags personnel visited the site intermittently (manager, construction director, superintendent) but were not onsite at the time of the accident.
- Plaintiff (personal representative) sued Six Flags for premises liability and construction negligence (including survival counts), alleging Six Flags retained sufficient control to be vicariously or directly liable and had notice of hazardous conditions.
- Six Flags moved for summary judgment arguing it did not retain control over means/methods, complied only with general safety oversight rights, and lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the specific hazardous condition; trial court granted summary judgment on those claims (negligent hiring claims were dismissed by plaintiff).
- The appellate court affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to raise genuine disputes on retained control under Restatement §414 or on Six Flags’ notice for premises liability under Restatement §343.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Six Flags is vicariously liable under the retained-control exception (Restatement §414) | Six Flags’ contractual safety rules, inspection/approval rights, site presence, and meetings show it retained control over operative details | Agreement and addendum expressly delegated means/methods and supervision to Campanella; Six Flags only had general oversight and limited site visits | No — summary judgment affirmed: contractual/supervisory/operational evidence insufficient to show retained control for vicarious liability |
| Whether Six Flags is directly liable under supervisory-control theory (Restatement §414 comments a/b) | Six Flags exercised supervisory authority (safety orientations, ability to stop work, inspections) and therefore failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent unsafe methods | Six Flags did not superintend the job, did not conduct routine safety inspections or meetings, and lacked opportunity/knowledge to prevent the specific unsafe act | No — summary judgment affirmed: record lacks proof Six Flags superintended the job or had actual/constructive knowledge of the specific unsafe conduct |
| Whether Six Flags had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition (premises liability, Restatement §343) | Six Flags personnel knew removal of the gearbox could create a hole and had opportunity to observe unsafe methods, so constructive/actual notice exists | Site oversight was limited; Six Flags personnel did not know gearbox would be removed separately or that safety gear would be removed at the time of the incident | No — summary judgment affirmed: no genuine issue that Six Flags had notice of the dangerous condition at the time of the fall |
| Whether safety manuals, OSHA compliance requirements, and site rules alone create retained control or duty | These materials, plus required orientations and right to request corrections, establish sufficient control/duty | Safety manuals and OSHA requirements do not, by themselves, change means/methods or create retained control absent evidence they affected operative details | No — summary judgment affirmed: safety programs and rules alone do not establish retained control without evidence they altered contractor’s means/methods |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 33 Ill. 2d 316 (Ill. 1965) (adopted Restatement §414 retained-control exception to employer nonliability for independent contractors)
- Cochran v. George Sollitt Constr. Co., 358 Ill. App. 3d 865 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (elements of construction negligence and distinction between vicarious and direct liability under §414)
- Martens v. MCL Constr. Corp., 347 Ill. App. 3d 303 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (contractual safety programs insufficient by themselves to show retained control; comment c analysis)
- Wilkerson v. Paul H. Schwendener, Inc., 379 Ill. App. 3d 491 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (premises and construction negligence framework; §343 and §414 analyses)