Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18233
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Matthew Schaefer, a Brand Energy employee, was struck in the head by a falling Universal scaffolding horizontal bar while assembling scaffolding at a Dynegy power plant and suffered serious injuries.
- Brand purchased Universal scaffolding for the job; Dynegy paid for and owned the scaffolding; Brand had contractual control over scaffold assembly at the site; Dynegy retained inspection and safety rights.
- Before testing, the specific bar that struck Schaefer was taken into Dynegy custody, stored, and then lost between 2010 and 2011; plaintiffs sought the bar in discovery but could not obtain it.
- Schaefer sued Universal (product liability and failure-to-warn), Dynegy (negligence and negligent spoliation), and Brand (negligent spoliation); Cynthia Schaefer asserted loss of consortium and joined spoliation claims.
- District court granted summary judgment to Universal on product claims (no proof the specific bar was defective) and to Dynegy on negligence; the district court also granted summary judgment to Brand and Dynegy on negligent-spoliation claims after excluding evidence that the missing bar was defective.
- Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on product-liability and negligence claims but reversed summary judgment on the negligent-spoliation claims, holding the district court applied the wrong causation standard and that factual disputes remain about whether plaintiffs had a reasonable probability of prevailing on the underlying claims if the bar had been preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schaefer can prove product liability against Universal without the specific bar | Schaefer: circumstantial evidence (widespread defects at jobsite, expert opinion) suffices to create a triable issue | Universal: without the actual bar or direct admissible evidence, causation is speculative | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Universal — plaintiff cannot prove defect causation by mere possibility |
| Whether Dynegy is liable in negligence despite hiring Brand (retained-control exception) | Schaefer: Dynegy retained control via on-site safety manager and MSA safety/inspection rights | Dynegy: only general inspection/safety rights; contract reserved operational control to Brand | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Dynegy — inspection/stop-work rights insufficient to show retained control over operational details |
| Whether Dynegy is liable under premises-liability or failure-to-warn theories | Schaefer: scaffolding components created a dangerous condition and Dynegy had unequal knowledge to warrant a warning | Dynegy: Brand (and its supervisors) had equal or greater knowledge; components were not a "condition on the land" | Court: Rejected these theories — plaintiff had equal or greater knowledge; premises-liability inapplicable |
| Whether Brand and Dynegy owed a duty to preserve the missing bar and whether loss of the bar caused plaintiff’s inability to prove underlying claims (spoliation) | Schaefers: both defendants had duty (possession, voluntary assumption, plaintiff’s discovery request); loss deprived them of reasonably probable proof of defect — experts could have tested the bar | Defendants: no duty or, even if duty, plaintiff cannot show they would have prevailed on underlying claims; excluded expert testimony as speculative | Court: Duty existed for both (Brand had custody/notice; Dynegy voluntarily assumed preservation). District court used wrong standard for causation (required proof of underlying success by preponderance). Reversed summary judgment on spoliation; motion in limine excluding defect evidence was erroneous under correct standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 166 Ill. 2d 188, 652 N.E.2d 267 (Ill. 1995) (recognizes negligent-spoliation cause of action and sets causation/"reasonable probability" standard)
- Shramek v. General Motors Corp., 69 Ill. App. 2d 72, 216 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966) (product-liability requires proof that the product was defective and caused the injury)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (plaintiff must identify manufacturer and show causal relationship between injury and product)
- Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., 2012 IL 113270, 979 N.E.2d 22 (Ill. 2012) (possession alone does not create duty to preserve evidence; special circumstances or voluntary undertaking required)
- Miller v. Gupta, 174 Ill. 2d 120, 672 N.E.2d 1229 (Ill. 1996) (examples of special circumstances giving rise to a preservation duty)
- Sanchez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 237 Ill. App. 3d 872, 604 N.E.2d 948 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (circumstantial proof of defect must tend to exclude other causes; speculation insufficient)