Martin v. Keeley & Sons
2011 IL App (5th) 100117
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Terry Martin, Ardith Wynn, and Rickey Vanover were injured when an I-beam supporting scaffold on a Maxwell Creek bridge collapsed.
- The I-beam was manufactured by Egyptian Concrete Company and its bearing assembly was designed by Henderson; Keeley & Sons, Inc. was the general contractor.
- Keeley destroyed the beam after inspections by IDOT and OSHA; the beam was partially salvaged and the rest left as riprap.
- Plaintiffs alleged Keeley breached duties to preserve the beam; Egyptian and Henderson asserted spoliation claims against Keeley.
- The circuit court granted Keeley summary judgment on spoliation claims; the appellate court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Keeley voluntarily undertake a duty to preserve the beam? | Keeley preserved the beam for its own purposes, creating a duty to others. | No duty arose; preservation was solely for IDOT/OSHA, not for third parties. | Yes, Boyd prong satisfied; Keeley undertook a duty to preserve. |
| Whether the foreseeability prong of Boyd is satisfied as a matter of law. | Foreseeability that the beam was material to future litigation existed. | No reasonable foreseeability given lack of evidence the beam caused the accident. | Issue for trier of fact; genuine issue of material fact exists. |
| Should summary judgment have been granted on spoliation claims? | There is a disputed material fact about foreseeability; summary judgment improper. | No duty or foreseeability; judgment appropriate. | Remanded for further proceedings; not to affirm summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 166 Ill. 2d 188 (1995) (two-prong Boyd test for duty to preserve evidence)
- Dardeen v. Kuehling, 213 Ill. 2d 329 (2004) (defines two-prong Boyd framework)
- Jones v. O’Brien Tire & Battery Service Center, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 918 (2007) (insufficient foreseeability elements may create fact issues)
- Andersen v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 212 (2003) (duty to preserve evidence arises from special circumstance or undertakings)
- Brobbey v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago, 404 Ill. App. 3d 420 (2010) (materiality of evidence in certain contexts may be obvious)
- Jones v. O’Brien Tire & Battery Service Center, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 918 (2007) (see above (duplicate entry kept for emphasis))
- Kambylis v. Ford Motor Co., 338 Ill. App. 3d 788 (2003) (evaluates foreseeability in preservation duties)
- Ney v. Yellow Cab Co., 2 Ill. 2d 74 (1954) (principle that questions with competing inferences should be resolved by jury)