Thompson v. Gordon
241 Ill. 2d 428
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Thompson, as administrator of decedents, sued engineers (Leisch & CH2M Hill) for negligent bridge-deck design linked to a fatal Grand Avenue (Route 132) collision.
- Defendants contracted with Western Development Corporation to provide engineering for Gurnee Mills redevelopment, including interchange improvements on Grand Avenue/I-94.
- Contract required replacing the existing bridge deck and median; the Scope of Services referenced roadway improvements while Structural Design addressed deck replacement.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants failed to consider/advise on a Jersey barrier or crossover protection on the bridge deck, which could have prevented the collision.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding defendants’ duty was limited to replacing the deck under the contract; appellate court reversed.
- Illinois Supreme Court granted review to determine the proper scope of duty under the contract and the applicable standard of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the contract's scope require a Jersey barrier design | Thompson contends the contract implied duty to design improvements including Jersey barrier. | Defendants argue replacement of the deck did not require barrier improvements. | No; replacement did not include barrier design. |
| Does the contract's standard of care extend beyond replacement to barrier improvements | Standard of care plus Ramisch affidavit support duty to consider improvements. | Standard of care limited to replacing the deck; no duty to improve. | No; standard of care limited to replacing deck; no fiduciary duty to design Jersey barrier. |
| Is Ramisch’s affidavit sufficient to create a duty breach question | Ramisch shows breach of professional standard by not considering barrier. | Expert evidence cannot expand contractual duty beyond language. | No; cannot expand duty beyond contract; no genuine issue if contract limits duty. |
| Was Ferentchak controlling over Advincula in a contract-defined duty | Ferentchak supports duty to design improvements where contract permits) | Advincula governs professional negligence generally; contract controls here. | Ferentchak controls; contract defines duty; no expanded duty from standard-of-care clause. |
| Should appellate court have been allowed to reach a factual dispute at summary judgment | Ramisch’s affidavit raises material facts about breach. | Contract limits duty; no factual issue; summary judgment appropriate. | Appellate court erred; trial court summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferentchak v. Village of Frankfort, 105 Ill.2d 474 (1985) (duty depends on contractual obligations; engineering duty defined by contract)
- Advincula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill.2d 1 (1996) (professional standard of care; expert testimony required)
- Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill.2d 78 (2007) (duty, breach, proximate cause framework for negligence)
- Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd. of Illinois, 191 Ill.2d 278 (2000) (expert testimony needed to prove standard of care and deviation)
- Gallagher v. Lenart, 367 Ill.App.3d 293 (2006) (contract interpretation; words given ordinary meaning; ambiguity analyzed with extrinsic evidence)
- Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 213 Ill.2d 141 (2004) (contract interpretation; ambiguity when language susceptible to more than one meaning)
- Bates & Rogers Construction Corp. v. North Shore Sanitary District, 92 Ill.App.3d 90 (1980) (intentional contract interpretation; scope defined by contract)
- Platt v. Gateway International Motorsports Corp., 351 Ill.App.3d 326 (2004) (contract interpretation; ambiguity and meaning tied to contractual terms)