2019 IL App (1st) 172878
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Thomas Zahumensky, a maintenance electrician, slipped on a wet patch of a PVC‑membrane outfield roof at U.S. Cellular Field in 2013, suffering career‑ending injuries.
- The outfield roof was replaced in 2011 with a Sika‑manufactured PVC membrane by contractor Bennett & Brousseau Roofing under contract with the White Sox; optional slip‑resistant walkways (SarnaTred/Crossgrip) were priced as add‑ons but not installed except at ladder step‑offs.
- Sika produced product literature recommending walkways in high‑traffic areas and supplied a caution sticker and warranty materials to Bennett, instructing Bennett to forward warning materials to the building owner.
- Plaintiffs sued Sika (negligence and strict product liability), Bennett (negligence), and Chicago White Sox (premises negligence), alleging failure to provide or warn about slip‑resistant walkways and that PVC is unreasonably slippery when wet.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal the court affirmed summary judgment for Sika (finding Sika discharged duty to warn) but reversed summary judgment for Bennett and the White Sox and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn by manufacturer (Sika) | Sika knew PVC was slippery when wet and failed to warn end users/owners about need for slip‑resistant walkways | Sika had no duty to third‑party invitees; it supplied product literature to installer and warranty materials to installer to pass on | Court: Sika adequately warned its immediate vendee and provided owner‑directed caution materials; summary judgment for Sika affirmed |
| Contractor's duty to owner/ invitees (Bennett) | Bennett should have recommended/installed walkways or at least warned White Sox about slipperiness | Bennett performed contracted roof replacement and followed owner direction/specs; no duty to redesign or second‑guess owner | Court: factual disputes exist about what Bennett warned/recommended and whether White Sox received sufficient information; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
| Possessor/owner duty (White Sox) | White Sox knew or should have known PVC becomes unreasonably slippery when wet and should have provided safe walkway | White Sox had no actual/constructive notice of the particular hazard or of standing water; natural accumulation rule bars liability | Court: the claim targets inherent slipperiness (not just standing water), distinguishing natural accumulation rule; factual issues exist about White Sox knowledge and response; summary judgment reversed |
| Product status / strict product liability against Sika | PVC membrane is a product and unreasonably dangerous as a walking surface without walkways | Membrane is a building component (not a discrete product); Sika did not design or install roof | Court: did not decide whether membrane is a product; resolved Sika claim on duty‑to‑warn basis in Sika's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Blasius, 74 Ill. 2d 203 (contractor following specifications generally not liable for design defects)
- Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill. 2d 428 (contractor liability where contract required exact replication of existing design)
- Venus v. O’Hara, 127 Ill. App. 3d 19 (manufacturer must at least warn immediate vendee; warnings to vendee can satisfy duty)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (elements of product‑liability claim: condition, unreasonably dangerous, existence at manufacturer control)
- Sommese v. Maling Bros., Inc., 36 Ill. 2d 263 (floor material that becomes very slippery when wet can create jury question; distinguishes natural‑accumulation cases)
- Watson v. J.C. Penney Co., 237 Ill. App. 3d 976 (natural accumulation rule: no duty to remove normal precipitation)
- Herzog v. Lexington Township, 167 Ill. 2d 288 (subsequent remedial measures may be admissible to show feasibility)