{ "id": 173514, "name": "MARTIN RANGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKHAVEN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Rangel v. Brookhaven Constructors, Inc.", "decision_date": "1999-09-29", "docket_number": "No. 1-99-1031", "first_page": "835", "last_page": "840", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "307 Ill. App. 3d 835" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "668 N.E.2d 1066", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "summary judgment proper where it is shown the employer delegated responsibility for the details of the work to the independent contractor" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 Ill. App. 3d 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 159534 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "summary judgment proper where it is shown the employer delegated responsibility for the details of the work to the independent contractor" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/282/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "627 N.E.2d 1265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 Ill. App. 3d 916", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2990507 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "924" }, { "page": "924" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/255/0916-01" ] }, { "cite": "636 N.E.2d 1079", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 Ill. App. 3d 858", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5367490 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "864" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/263/0858-01" ] }, { "cite": "706 N.E.2d 990", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 Ill. App. 3d 916", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1352881 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/302/0916-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 N.E.2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. 2d 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2883616 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 N.E.2d 642", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Ill. App. 3d 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2688683 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/14/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 N.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 2d 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2911653 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/50/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 N.E.2d 1204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4820940 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/154/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 N.E.2d 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 Ill. App. 3d 1045", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5138976 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/240/1045-01" ] }, { "cite": "623 N.E.2d 799", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no liability found under section 414 of the Restatement when the responsibility of the general contractor is primarily focused on checking daily progress, not supervising the manner in which work was done" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 Ill. App. 3d 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2968818 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no liability found under section 414 of the Restatement when the responsibility of the general contractor is primarily focused on checking daily progress, not supervising the manner in which work was done" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/252/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 N.E.2d 1098", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 Ill. 2d 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3283128 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/148/0417-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 608, "char_count": 10257, "ocr_confidence": 0.816, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.389803344656132e-07, "percentile": 0.8768517006203836 }, "sha256": "90fbe2174901dc0395833725db65ce345ea0a3dab1069317d48b2c0aba368340", "simhash": "1:2dbd61c73c5f3cb0", "word_count": 1690 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:41.446378+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MARTIN RANGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKHAVEN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOLFSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nWith the repeal of the Structural Work Act (see 740 ILCS 150/0.01 (West 1996)), a general contractor\u2019s liability for injury to an independent subcontractor\u2019s employee at a work site will be based on common law negligence principles. Still, the question of who controls the work must be answered before it can be said a duty exists to use reasonable care.\nIn this case, we find the trial judge correctly determined the general contractor owed no duty to the independent contractor\u2019s employee.\nFACTS\nLincoln Lofts, Inc. (Lincoln), owned the building located at 3151 North Lincoln Avenue in Chicago. In an effort to rehab the property into lofts for sale, Lincoln entered into a contract with Brookhaven Constructors, Inc. (Brookhaven). Brookhaven, as general contractor, entered into contracts with several subcontractors, including Drywall Services, Inc. (Drywall).\nDrywall, according to its contract with Brookhaven, was to provide all labor, materials, tools, plant, equipment, competent full-time supervision and services, and \u201cdo all things necessary for the proper performance, installation, construction and completion of all the Steel Studs and Gyp board hereinafter called the Work\u2019 under and in accordance with the General Contract.\u201d (Emphasis in original.)\nAt about 8 a.m. on August 28, 1996, 26-year-old Martin Rangel (Rangel) arrived at the Lincoln Lofts project. Rangel was employed by Drywall as a drywall hanger \u2014 a job he had done for various employers over the past six years. When Rangel arrived at the work site he reported to his supervisor, Francisco Morphin, and was given his work assignment. Rangel was told to work on a scaffold, which Drywall had constructed two days earlier. The scaffold was located at the rear entrance of the Lincoln Lofts building, on a ramp leading to the underground garage. The scaffold was a large structure, 10 to 15 feet tall and consisting of three towers joined by wooden planks. The scaffold had been leveled and braces were added to keep the scaffold from slipping down the ramp.\nOn August 27, 1996, the previous day, Rangel and his coworkers worked on the scaffold all day, putting up drywall on the ceiling. This day, Rangel used the same scaffold, which had not been moved, to put up drywall on the walls.\nRangel said Morphin instructed him on the morning of August 28 regarding the installation of the drywall. Morphin told Rangel he should step on the braces that extended, out from the scaffold when it was necessary to maneuver the drywall into place.\nRangel did as he was instructed. As he assisted in positioning the drywall, Rangel stepped down on brace 1 and brace 2 without incident. However, when he stepped onto the third brace, it gave way and Ran-gel fell 7 to 10 feet to the concrete floor below. Rangel lost consciousness when he fell and suffered a basal skull fracture. He also suffered a broken left arm and a broken finger on the right hand.\nRangel brought suit against Brookhaven, the general contractor for the Lincoln Lofts project. Relying on section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 414 (1965)), Rangel contended Brookhaven owed him a duty of care, which it breached by failing to inspect the scaffold and/or by failing to warn him of the dangerous condition the scaffold presented.\nBrookhaven filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it owed no duty to Rangel, the employee of an independent contractor. The trial court granted the motion and Rangel brought this appeal.\nDECISION\nRangel\u2019s cause of action against Brookhaven is premised on common law negligence. In any action for negligence, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to establish the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff. Wojdyla v. City of Park Ridge, 148 Ill. 2d 417, 592 N.E.2d 1098 (1992); Rogers v. West Construction Co., 252 Ill. App. 3d 103, 623 N.E.2d 799 (1993). Whether a duty exists is a question of law to be decided by the court, and if no duty exists there can be no recovery. Schoenbeck v. Du Page Water Comm\u2019n, 240 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 607 N.E.2d 693 (1993). We review the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of Brookhaven under a de novo standard. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102, 607 N.E.2d 1204 (1992).\nAs a general rule, one who employs an independent contractor is not liable for the acts or omissions of the latter. Gomien v. Wear-Ever Aluminum, Inc., 50 Ill. 2d 19, 276 N.E.2d 336 (1971); Pasko v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 14 Ill. App. 3d 481, 302 N.E.2d 642 (1973). Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a recognized expression of Illinois law, provides an exception to the general rule. See Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 33 Ill. 2d 316, 211 N.E.2d 247 (1965).\nSection 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts states:\n\u201cOne who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 414 (1965).\nThe \u201cretained control\u201d concept is explained in comment c to section 414, which states:\n\u201cIn order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, the employer must have retained at least some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 414, Comment c, at 388 (1965).\nIn the present case, the subcontract agreement between Drywall and Brookhaven provided:\n\u201cThe General Contractor shall have the right to exercise complete supervision and control over the work to be done by the Subcontractor, but such supervision and control shall not in any way limit the obligations of the Subcontractor.\u201d\nRangel, citing Sobczak v. Flaska, 302 Ill. App. 3d 916, 706 N.E.2d 990 (1998), contends this contract, along with affidavits presented to the trial court, raised a fact question on whether Brookhaven exerted sufficient control over Drywall to be held liable. We disagree.\nIn Sobczak, there was evidence the injured employee was working under the direct supervision of the property owner (Flaska), who listed himself as general contractor on the permit for renovations at his home. The evidence showed Flaska \u201ctold Sobczak what to do and how to do it or passed such information through others.\u201d Sobczak, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 923.\nIn this case, Brookhaven\u2019s reservation of the right of supervision over Drywall is a general right. It does not refer, directly or indirectly, to a right to direct the installation of drywall or the erection of the scaffold.\nThere is no evidence to suggest Drywall was not entirely free to perform the work in its own way. The evidence showed Brookhaven never directed the \u201coperative details\u201d of the work performed by Drywall and Rangel. Drywall, not Brookhaven, supplied the scaffold on which Rangel worked. A Drywall supervisor, not Brookhaven, directed Rangel to utilize the braces when necessary for positioning the drywall. This unsafe method of performing the work, which led to Ran-gel\u2019s injury, was proposed by Rangel\u2019s employer just hours before the accident. Here, as in Bezan v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 263 Ill. App. 3d 858, 864, 636 N.E.2d 1079 (1994), there is nothing to suggest that the general contractor \u201cknew or had notice of the hazardous method employed within this restrictive time period.\u201d\nWe find there can be no liability imposed on Brookhaven because, as the court said in Fris v. Personal Products Co., 255 Ill. App. 3d 916, 924, 627 N.E.2d 1265 (1994), \u201c[the employer] controlled the ends; [the independent contractor] was responsible for the means by which those ends were to be achieved.\u201d That is, even where the employer or general contractor retains the right to inspect the work done, orders changes to the specifications and plans, and ensures that safety precautions are observed and the work is done in a safe manner, no liability will be imposed on the employer or general contractor unless the evidence shows the employer or general contractor retained control over the \u201cincidental aspects\u201d of the independent contractor\u2019s work. Fris, 255 Ill. App. 3d at 924. See also Steuri v. Prudential Insurance Co., 282 Ill. App. 3d 753, 668 N.E.2d 1066 (1996) (summary judgment proper where it is shown the employer delegated responsibility for the details of the work to the independent contractor); Rogers v. West Construction Co., 252 Ill. App. 3d 103, 623 N.E.2d 799 (1993) (no liability found under section 414 of the Restatement when the responsibility of the general contractor is primarily focused on checking daily progress, not supervising the manner in which work was done).\nCONCLUSION\nWe agree with the trial court that under the circumstances of this case the section 414 exception does not apply. Brookhaven owed no duty to Rangel, an employee of the independent contractor, Drywall. We find summary judgment in Brookhaven\u2019s favor was proper. We affirm the order granting Brookhaven\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nAffirmed.\nCERDA and BURKE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOLFSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Brian J. McManus, Thomas J. Loucks, and Brian J. McManus, Jr., all of Brian J. McManus & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Williams & Montgomery, Ltd., of Chicago (Barry L. Kroll, David E. Neumeister, Gregory J. Bird, and Lloyd E. Williams, Jr., of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARTIN RANGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKHAVEN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201499\u20141031\nOpinion filed September 29, 1999.\nRehearing denied October 25, 1999.\nBrian J. McManus, Thomas J. Loucks, and Brian J. McManus, Jr., all of Brian J. McManus & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nWilliams & Montgomery, Ltd., of Chicago (Barry L. Kroll, David E. Neumeister, Gregory J. Bird, and Lloyd E. Williams, Jr., of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0835-01", "first_page_order": 853, "last_page_order": 858 }