*1 The court there justified punishment the crime handed down. home significant that the defendant retreated to relative’s found it after first then returned to the scene "out altercation but knife, anger,” kill the carrying a butcher which he used to deceased. and can find no present We have reviewed the record case arriving improper court factors in evidence that trial considered 15-year sentence. reasons, foregoing judgment For the the circuit court County is Cook affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

EGAN, P.J., RAKOWSKI, J., concur. INC., MAGNOLIA, FERRER, Plaintiff-Appellant, SUGAR Defendant- GIL Appellee. (6th Division)

First District No. 1 — 92—3929 May 27, Opinion filed concurring. RAKOWSKI, J., specially (Jack Kramer, Montgomery Rathsack, Chicago W. L. W. Michael counsel), Rathsack, appellant.

Mackey, and Michael W. (Gail Omahana, Landau, Ltd., Allyn Kopka, Chicago Omahana & Cousino, counsel), appellee. Timothy Palumbo, M. and Darrah Desmond opinion of the court: JUSTICE GIANNIS delivered *2 action Plaintiff, Ferrer, single-count personal injury Gil filed a (740 ILCS alleging by violation defendant of (West 1992)). court to later leave of seq. Plaintiff obtained et 150/1 complaint allege negligence. and Before the complaint amend the Inc., brought amended, however, defendant, Sugar Magnolia, a was granted. The trial for which court motion the juris just delay appeal. to have court found there to be no reason We 304(a) 304(a)). (134 under Court Ill. 2d R. Supreme diction Rule injury, by employed At the time of his was the owners a a the building. multi-unit commercial Defendant was lessee of first- building converting space this space floor the and was clothing a a boutique. from record store into retail renovation, a mezzanine. part As its defendant constructed Photographs in the stood in the rear the record show that mezzanine poured by posts. and a metal supported the store had concrete floor designed to give shoppers "upstairs” The mezzanine access an was to by provided the and "downstairs” level. The obvious benefit clothing. greater space display mezzanine was it floor to that created mezzanine, large cut In the middle of the defendant two holes designed light pass were to to into the downstairs area. allow During process, the the in the mezzanine floor holes they to when needed to were also convenient for the workers use areas. pass upstairs between and downstairs supplies tools the made on the two different levels possible holes also it for the workers railings eventually were to communicate with one another. Finished holes, when railings place were installed around the but these injured. plaintiff was renovating ceiling, the high

Because had a workers the store upper area of the mezzanine to ceiling walls and the store used the At time fell from they while worked. elevate themselves mezzanine, by temporary area was a upstairs access to the wooden staircase. noted, plaintiff hired defendant

As was not one of workers Instead, employed on was perform renovations the store. building’s "porter” as a for the janitor both a and owner as paid a building. deposition, plaintiff testified he his hourly salary monthly salary janitorial his work an and received janitorial porter. his a Plaintiff his duties work as testified that cleaning usually common areas of the involved after-hours building. During occasionally haul the renovation would garbage building out from area when inside renovation however, requested specifically employed, to do so. He was not janitorial provide boutique. services to defendant’s porter carry job required beeper Plaintiff’s as him to building’s building passkeys. When access to the af- someone needed employer ter hours him the to turn off his would summon open necessary the alarms and doors. snap

There was a cold in late of 1989. Because the December renovation, during store was uninsulated and had no heat temperatures Plaintiff called on boutique dropped. inside building. Friday heating to meet a When told contractor arrange meeting plaintiff and the contractor were unable to on however, Friday, they agreed Tuesday meet on after one another holiday falling tempera- the Christmas weekend. As result of store, however, pipe tures burst. day, Sunday, him on employer

Plaintiff’s called Christmas him to because a told meet at store that afternoon leaking at had and water Plaintiff arrived pipe frozen inside. plumber. opened store and met the Plaintiff the outer doors *3 building with the in to search proceeded plumber and inside order inside, running men could hear pipe. for the broken Once two up the mezzanine stairs to water. Plaintiff and the walked temporary lighting for the and the water shut off valve. The look recently had covered the windows store was dark because workers way mezzanine, fell back of the paper. On the to the injured on the below. through open one holes and floor of through who falls a presented The is whether issue support had been workers for in a mezzanine floor which used hole may a cause action under of a maintain of in the renovation though is Act, himself even the Structural Work building’s in renovation. employed determine proceeding by which to

Summary judgment is try (Cunningham exists, to an issue. fact such whether material (1980), 87 Ill. Division Multigraph Corp.-Bruning Addressograph v. 89.) When, here, agree 398, parties as 396, as 3d 409 N.E.2d App. solely in- proper is and the issue relevant facts of the case to the facts, pre- question to those applied a statute as terpretation of may be disposition and is law sented one of (See (1987), Corp. 117 Ill. Steel United States e.g., Vuletich v. proper.

189 1223.) 421, appellate court of 417, 2d 512 Review in the N.E.2d (1993), grant summary novo. In re Estate Hoover judgment of is de of 402, Liberty 736; v. Corp. 155 Ill. 2d N.E.2d Outboard Marine 615 90, (1992), 102, Mutual 2d 607 N.E.2d 1204. Insurance Co. 154 Ill. statutory interpretation is to principle The fundamental of (Harvel legislature. give ascertain and to effect to intention of 282, 1217; City (1992), 277, v. 586 City Johnston 146 Ill. 2d N.E.2d of 814.) (1991), 271, 278, v. Thomas Greer 143 Ill. 2d N.E.2d proper starting therefore, involving point, every in case language construction of statute is of the statute itself. Castillo (1992), 175, 165, 323. Jackson 149 Ill. 2d 594 N.E.2d (Act) provide pertinent The terms part: hoists, ladders, scaffolds, cranes, stays, supports, "All or other *** contrivances, the use in

mechanical erected or constructed alteration, any erection, painting of repairing, the house, removal or viaduct, structure, bridge, building, or shall be other constructed, safe, manner, proper erected and in a suitable and constructed, as placed operated and shall be so erected and any give proper adequate life protection to the and limb (740 persons engaged person employed or thereon ***.” ILCS (West 1992).) 150/1 right damages provides

Section 9 of the Act for direct action by any failure person sustained whose loss is the result of "wilful 1992). (West comply” with the terms of the 740 ILCS statute. 150/9 stat interpreting legislation, language in addition itself, legislature ute courts to the which the intended to look evil (Harvel, 283; remedy passing Ill. 2d at Brackett v. the statute. 8.) (1963), App. 44 Ill. 2d 195 N.E.2d The Structural Osborne legislative purpose” protection Work Act has as its "clear near a persons occupations in extrahazardous on or (Dasenbrock (1987), App. 151 Ill. 3d construction site. v. Serstel Co. 1106.) 1092, 1096, interpreted in order 503 N.E.2d The Act should be provide protection injured those at a construction site because uses of hazards associated with the scaffolds particular support performing one types other similar devices Palumbo in the Act. Humbert v. specific activities enumerated 269, 274, (1993), 3d 625 N.E.2d Excavating Co. *4 to al- following in order the elements

Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) Act: lege plaintiff’s proper violation of the Structural Work scaffold, hoist, crane, stay, ladder, support, or injury arose from a operated was not erected other mechanical contrivance which and/or (2) manner; injury, plaintiff his was involved in a at the time of safe 190 alteration, erection, building, bridge, repairing,

in the or removal of a (4) (3) structure; work; charge was or other defendant in willfully comply v. (Rogers defendant failed to with the Act. West 799.) (1993), 103, App. 111-12, N.E.2d Construction Co. 252 Ill. 3d 623 inability produce plaintiff’s A evidence of one or more of above grounds summary judgment. Rogers, is Ill. elements sufficient 252 (1974), 112; App. Christopher 3d at B.C. & 57 Ill. 2d Carruthers v. Co. 376, 380, 313 N.E.2d (1975), 363, City Plaintiff Ill. Chicago cites Tenenbaum v. 60 2d 607, against tripped N.E.2d fell

325 which a labor foreman ladder, fall resulting through in a an chamber and into unbarricaded liability supreme properly basement. The court found that attached previously under Act where the chamber had been used moving though as a workers conduit materials even using purpose was not for that when he The chamber fell. Tenenbaum, however, plaintiff in actually employed was in connection Moreover, activity injury. his construction time of Act, brought 7 of Tennenbaum his claim under section is not at issue here. (1990), 38, 347, Village Ill. 2d 561 N.E.2d v. Lisle 137 Lafata decision, supreme an appellate court considered the facts of (1982), Ill. Corp. 3d 441 Prange Kamar Construction Frange appellate N.E.2d 889. In court addressed whether the injury equipped applied an sustained the driver tractor transporting was from a stor poles with a forklift while the tractor injured age place area to their installation. The was when operator’s compartment poles slid from the forklift onto the several raising court concluded supreme while he forklift device. activity "sufficiently an unique transport poles that the activity "particu industry” was of the construction such 357.) at These factors larly (Lafata, nature.” 2d hazardous liability potential decision which found important in the court’s were under the Act. mezzanine floor "in the using not

In this case activity” working platform.” "as performance a hazardous 423.) (See plaintiff’s activities Vuletich, Ill. 2d at Nor were "unique pipes leading to the broken water 358.) pre at The facts industry.” 137 Ill. 2d (Lafata, in the reno generally involved plaintiff was establish that sented garbage occasionally haul except boutique of defendant’s vation he was reject plaintiff’s claims that area. We away from the because renovation of injury the time his at undergoing had the store been have burst would not pipe *5 everyone who protect The Act was not intended construction. actually Only who those injured on a construction site. happens to be provi Act’s activity covered are participate (worker (See, Dasenbrock, 3d at 1098 e.g., sions. been an be said to have by the Act his "actions cannot covered where *** structure”).) erection integral part of or have furthered class the a member of the plaintiff Because we conclude the was not trial order. designed protect, we affirm the court’s statute negligence, may of action for While have valid cause Act. may proceed he under the terms of granting reasons, foregoing circuit court’s order For motion is affirmed. defendant’s Affirmed.

EGAN, P.J., concurs. RAKOWSKI, concurring: specially

JUSTICE agree portion majority opinion I which concludes that employees not a member the class reason, designed I protect. Structural Work Act was For that agree be that the order of the circuit court should affirmed.

However, assuming a member of arguendo that class, agree portion protected I would reverse. I do not with that per- majority opinion which holds that was not activity protection. of an entitled to formance al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, SER et v. WILLIAM KIRKPATRICK W. DILLING al., Defendants-Appellees. et GIO (6th Division) First No. 1 — 92—4011 District Opinion May filed