An Illinois appellate court recently affirmed the entry of summary judgment for a general contractor sued for negligence by one of its subcontractor’s employees.  In Cain v. Joe Contarino, Inc., indiv. and d/b/a Contry Homes, Inc., of Illinois, 2014 IL App (2d) 130482, the court heard the appeal of a carpenter injured while performing work for his employer, Hawkins Construction (“Hawkins”).  Hawkins was framing a single-family home near Rockford, Illinois.  Joe Contarino, Inc. d/b/a Contry Homes, Inc. (“Contry Homes”) was the general contractor on the project.  The incident occurred while the plaintiff was setting roof trusses.  A truss came loose and the plaintiff fell to the ground, suffering injury.  The plaintiff filed suit against the general contractor, Contry, alleging that Contry failed to ensure that the plaintiff’s employer maintained safe work practices at the jobsite.

Illinois has adopted Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides an exception to the general rule that one who employs an independent contractor is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor.  Under Section 414, a general contractor that retains control over the work of its subcontractor is liable for injuries caused by the general contractor’s failure to exercise that control with reasonable care.  Contry moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not retain control over the plaintiff’s employer’s work sufficient for a duty to arise under Section 414.  Judge Edward Prochaska of the Circuit Court of Winnebago County granted Contry’s motion and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that Contry’s written agreement with the plaintiff’s employer established that Contry controlled his employer’s work, including safety on the jobsite and that Contry actually controlled jobsite safety and the means and methods of the plaintiff’s employer’s work.  The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.  The appellate court found that Contry’s agreement with the plaintiff’s employer described the employer as a “subcontractor” that had full discretion over construction techniques, including safety.  There was also no evidence that Contry imposed any safety measures on the plaintiff’s employer or controlled the means and methods of the employer’s work on the jobsite.

(Cray Huber has prevailed numerous times on motions filed on similar grounds, including on behalf of a general contractor sued in a wrongful death action.  That motion was also heard by Judge Edward Prochaska in Winnebago County and argued by Cray Huber attorneys Michael Huber, David Kravitz, and Zachary Shook.)