Snow v. Power Construction Co.
2017 IL App (1st) 151226
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- John Snow, a surveyor employed by Professionals, was injured when 14 sheets of drywall vertically stacked in a temporary hospital corridor fell on him after he nudged them while checking a benchmark.
- Thorne (drywall subcontractor) stacked the leftover drywall against a brick wall overnight; Power entities (PCC and PCEC) were general contractor/construction manager entities on the project; contracts allocated safety and material-protection responsibilities to subcontractors but retained general supervisory rights for Power.
- Plaintiff sued PCC, PCEC, and Thorne for negligence (including a retained-control theory under Restatement §414) and premises liability; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Discovery included multiple depositions and contract production; plaintiff sought to depose PCC’s president after a court-ordered discovery cutoff; the court quashed that notice.
- The trial court struck parts of plaintiff’s affidavit and expert Richard Hislop’s affidavit as violating Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(a) and granted summary judgment for all defendants; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Power (PCC/PCEC) retained sufficient control over subcontractors to owe a duty under Restatement §414 | Power retained safety/control obligations via contract and safety program, creating a question of fact on retained control | Contracts reserved only general supervisory rights; subcontractors controlled means/methods and were responsible for stored materials | No retained-control duty: contracts and testimony showed only general rights to supervise; summary judgment for PCC/PCEC affirmed |
| Whether Thorne owed a duty because drywall was stacked unsafely (foreseeability) | Stacking drywall on edge is hazardous and foreseeable; Thorne failed to secure it | Industry custom: trades do not move others’ materials; benchmark was not obstructed; it was not foreseeable someone would move the drywall | No duty: not objectively foreseeable Snow would move another contractor’s materials; summary judgment for Thorne affirmed |
| Whether the condition was actionable under premises-liability (Restatement §343/343A) and whether the deliberate-encounter exception applies | Drywall created an unreasonable, non-obvious hazard; deliberate-encounter exception applies because Snow needed to inspect benchmarks within corridor | Drywall condition was open and obvious; Snow’s benchmark was not blocked; he voluntarily and negligently moved the drywall contrary to jobsite custom | Open-and-obvious rule and lack of reasonable foreseeability apply; deliberate-encounter exception not triggered; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the trial court properly struck portions of plaintiff’s and Hislop’s affidavits and quashed deposition notice | Affidavits were admissible expert/fact support; deposition sought contract interpretation from PCC president | Portions of affidavits were conclusory, contradicted prior sworn testimony, or lacked factual foundation; deposition was untimely and unnecessary because contracts were produced | Court properly struck the challenged affidavit portions under Rule 191(a) and did not abuse discretion quashing the deposition notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (summary judgment standard and affidavit requirements)
- Ragan v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Co., 183 Ill. 2d 342 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation)
- Kotecki v. Walsh Constr. Co., 333 Ill. App. 3d 583 (application of Restatement §414 in construction context)
- Shaughnessy v. Skender Constr. Co., 342 Ill. App. 3d 730 (insufficient retained control; general contractor not liable)
- Rangel v. Brookhaven Constructors, Inc., 307 Ill. App. 3d 835 (general right to inspect does not establish control over operative details)