O'Connell v. Turner Construction Co.
409 Ill. App. 3d 819
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Grayslake Community High School District 127 hired Turner Construction Company as construction manager for a new high school campus; Turner drafted and helped administer contracts but had no direct contract with Linden, plaintiff's employer.
- Turner's contract sections 2.3.12, 2.3.15 disclaimed Turner’s direct control over subcontractors, means, methods, or safety on the job.
- A supplement to Turner's contract modified 2.3.15 to add a discovery caveat, amended 2.3.28, and deleted the last sentence of that paragraph.
- Linden Erectors, subcontracted by Linden's employer Waukegan Steel, performed the plaintiff's work; plaintiff was injured July 17, 2003 while guiding a motorized lift-powered steel cable.
- Plaintiff filed suit June 20, 2005 against Turner and others; after settlements, Turner remained as the sole defendant in January 2009, asserting claims under Restatement (Second) Torts §§ 414 and 343.
- The trial court granted Turner summary judgment; the appellate court affirmed, holding Turner did not entrust work to Connecticut contractors nor possess the land under § 343.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turner is liable under § 414 for construction negligence. | O'Connell claims Turner retained operational control over safety and construction means. | There was no entrustment of work to Turner by a proper principal; control alone does not trigger § 414. | No liability under § 414; entrustment absent; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether Turner is liable under § 343 as a land possessor. | Turner had general responsibility for site safety and control over activity, implying possession. | Turner was not in possession or intent to control the land; only controlled the workers, not the premises. | No liability under § 343; Turner not a land possessor; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haberer v. Village of Sauget, 158 Ill.App.3d 313 (1987) (Bearer of control liability; Restatement § 414 relied upon)
- Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill.App.3d 303 (2004) (Entrustment/retained control framework in § 414)
- Grillo v. Yeager Construction, 387 Ill.App.3d 577 (2008) (Focus on entrustment and control in § 414 analyses)
- Wilkerson v. Paul H. Schwendener, Inc., 379 Ill.App.3d 491 (2008) (Control vs. possession considerations under premises doctrine)
- Ivanov v. Process Design Associates, 267 Ill.App.3d 440 (1993) (Court discusses duties outside § 414 based on conduct)
- Madden v. F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielson, Inc., 395 Ill.App.3d 362 (2009) (Possessor analysis for § 343 premises liability)
- Collins v. Mid-America Bag Co., 179 Ill.App.3d 792 (1989) (Licensee possession considerations under § 343)
- Esser v. McIntyre, 169 Ill.2d 292 (1996) (Occupancy and control standards for occupier liability)