Kotecki v. Walsh Construction Co.
333 Ill. App. 3d 583, 267 Ill. Dec. 402, 776 N. E. 2d 774 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general contractor is not liable for injuries to a subcontractor's employee under a retained control theory unless it controls the operative details and methods of the work, not just general supervision. A landowner is not liable for injuries from an open and obvious condition on a construction site under the distraction exception where the burden of eliminating such inherent distractions is immense and contrary to public policy.
Facts:
- Home Depot, Inc. was the owner of a construction project for a new store, and Walsh Construction Company was the general contractor.
- Walsh hired Bohemian Kelleher Painting Company (Kelleher) as a subcontractor to perform painting work.
- The plaintiff, a commercial painter, was employed by Kelleher.
- On January 1, 1996, construction was substantially complete, and the building was turned over to Home Depot, whose employees began stocking the store using forklifts in the dock area.
- On January 23, 1996, the plaintiff was assigned a 'punch list' task to paint dock doorframes in the active dock area, using an A-frame ladder supplied by his employer, Kelleher.
- Plaintiff was aware of the dock leveler next to his ladder and the activity of Home Depot employees unloading merchandise around him.
- After completing his work, plaintiff descended the ladder, lost his footing as he stepped off, and injured his foot and back.
- Kelleher, not Walsh or Home Depot, supplied all painting materials, gave the plaintiff his work assignments, and inspected his completed work.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against Walsh Construction Company and Home Depot, Inc. in the trial court.
- The complaint was amended, resulting in a fifth amended complaint alleging common law negligence against Walsh and premises liability against Home Depot.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a general contractor or property owner owe a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee who is injured on a construction site, when the general contractor only retained a general right of supervision and the injury allegedly arose from the open and obvious and distracting condition of other workers performing their jobs nearby?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cahill
No, neither the general contractor nor the property owner owed a duty of care to the subcontractor's employee under these circumstances. To establish a duty against a general contractor under the 'retained control' doctrine of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414, the contractor must do more than reserve a general right to supervise or inspect the work; they must retain control over the specific methods and operative details of the subcontractor's work. Here, the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff's employer, Kelleher, exclusively controlled the manner in which he completed his painting assignment, providing tools, assignments, and supervision. Walsh's role was one of general supervision, which is insufficient to create a duty. Similarly, Home Depot, as the property owner, had no duty under the Premises Liability Act. The allegedly dangerous condition—the presence and activity of multiple tradesmen—was an open and obvious risk inherent to a construction site. The 'distraction' exception to the open and obvious rule does not apply because imposing a duty on a landowner to create a distraction-free construction environment would be an impossible burden and ignores the realities of the construction industry, making it contrary to public policy. The plaintiff also failed to provide evidence that he was actually distracted rather than merely inattentive.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that general contractors and landowners are generally not liable for injuries sustained by a subcontractor's employees, thus protecting them from acting as general insurers for jobsite safety. It clarifies that for liability under the 'retained control' doctrine, a plaintiff must demonstrate control over the actual 'how' of the work, not just general oversight or contractual authority to inspect. The opinion significantly curtails the application of the 'distraction exception' in the context of construction sites, establishing that the inherent and expected hustle and bustle of such an environment does not, by itself, create a duty for landowners to prevent related injuries. This sets a high bar for plaintiffs in construction accident cases who seek to hold entities other than their direct employer liable.
