Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martens v. MCL Construction Corp.green2 sentences2024Further “[a] general right to enforce safety [ ] does not amount to retained control under section 414.” Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 47 ; see also Cain v. Joe Contarino, Inc., 2014 IL App (2d) 130482, ¶ 106 (same). “[T]he existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety direction does not constitute retained control per se.” - 27 - Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill. App. 3d 303, 318 (2004). 2021App. 3d at 318 . ¶ 64 Significantly, “the existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety director does not constitute retained control per se; the court must still conduct an analysis pursuant to the section 414 retained control exception.” Id. | 6 | 15 |
Joyce v. Mastrigreen2 sentences2024Joyce, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 74 . 2024Joyce v. Mastri, 371 Ill. App. 3d 64, 74 (2007). | 5 | 6 |
Moss v. Rowe Construction Co.green2 sentences2005See Moss, 344 Ill. 2005See Moss , 344 Ill. | 4 | 4 |
Cain v. Contarinogreen2 sentences2024Co., 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 47 ; see Cain, 2014 IL App (2d) 130482, ¶ 106 (same). “[T]he existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety director does not constitute retained control per se.” Martens, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 318 . 2024Further “[a] general right to enforce safety [ ] does not amount to retained control under section 414.” Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 47 ; see also Cain v. Joe Contarino, Inc., 2014 IL App (2d) 130482, ¶ 106 (same). “[T]he existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety direction does not constitute retained control per se.” - 27 - Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill. App. 3d 303, 318 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
Pestka v. Town of Fort Sheridan Company, LLCgreen2 sentences2008App. 3d at 318 ; accord Pestka, 371 Ill. 2008App. 3d at 318 ; accord Pestka, 371 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Ross v. Dae Julie, Inc.green2 sentences2017Joyce v. Mastri, 371 Ill. App. 3d 64, 74 (2007); Ross, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 1071-73 . 2016Joyce v. Mastri, 371 Ill. App. 3d 64, 74 (2007); Ross, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 1071-73 . | 1 | 3 |
Neisendorf v. Abbey Paving & Sealcoating Co., Inc.green1 sentence2024Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 cmt. c (1965); see also Neisendorf, 2024 IL App (2d) 230209, ¶ 87 (“We reject plaintiff’s argument that the fact that [the general contractor] could stop work was itself sufficient evidence of control under section 414 of the Restatement.”); LePretre, 2017 IL App (1st) 162320, ¶ 46 (finding that the general contractor’s on-site presence and authority to reject work did not indicate retained control). ¶ 58 Neither of the contracts at issue supports a finding that Metro retained control over Wiberg’s work such that it owed him a duty of care. ¶ 59 2. | 1 | 1 |
LePretre v. Lend Lease Construction, Inc.green1 sentence2024Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 cmt. c (1965); see also Neisendorf, 2024 IL App (2d) 230209, ¶ 87 (“We reject plaintiff’s argument that the fact that [the general contractor] could stop work was itself sufficient evidence of control under section 414 of the Restatement.”); LePretre, 2017 IL App (1st) 162320, ¶ 46 (finding that the general contractor’s on-site presence and authority to reject work did not indicate retained control). ¶ 58 Neither of the contracts at issue supports a finding that Metro retained control over Wiberg’s work such that it owed him a duty of care. ¶ 59 2. | 1 | 1 |
Connaghan v. Caplicegreen1 sentence2020However, as previously discussed, defendant’s “general right to enforce safety, does not amount to retained control under section 414.” Carney, 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 47 ; Connaghan, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 250 (concluding that the deposition testimony that showed that the defendant had “the right to stop the work, tell the contractors to be careful, and change the way something was being done if he felt something was unsafe” did not establish sufficient control to trigger a duty under section 414). ¶ 76 Plaintiff also argues that evidence of control is shown by the fact that defendant provided the mat | 1 | 1 |
Gregory v. Beazer Eastgreen1 sentence2014Count II–Dangerous Condition on the Land - 27 - ¶ 120 “An owner or possessor of land owes its invitees a common law duty of reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition [citation], but no legal duty arises unless the harm is reasonably foreseeable [citation].” Gregory v. Beazer East, 384 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shaughnessy v. Skender Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2012See Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill.App.3d 303 , 282 Ill.Dec. 856 , 807 N.E.2d 480 (2004) (steel fabricator subcontractor did not retain supervisory or contractual control over the ironworkers' erection of the steel); Shaughnessy v. Skender Construction Co., 342 Ill.App.3d 730 , 276 Ill.Dec. 687 , 794 N.E.2d 937 (2003) (accord). 2012See Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill.App.3d 303 , 282 Ill.Dec. 856 , 807 N.E.2d 480 (2004) (steel fabricator subcontractor did not retain supervisory or contractual control over the ironworkers' erection of the steel); Shaughnessy v. Skender Construction Co., 342 Ill.App.3d 730 , 276 Ill.Dec. 687 , 794 N.E.2d 937 (2003) (accord). | 3 | 2004–2012 |
Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
green
2 sentences2017Carney, 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 41 . “[T]he existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety director does not constitute retained control per se; the court must still conduct an analysis pursuant to the section 414 retained control exception.” Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill. 2017Carney, 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 41 . “[T]he existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety director does not constitute retained control per se; the court must still conduct an analysis pursuant to the section 414 retained control exception.” Martens v. MCL Construction Corp., 347 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Lee v. Six Flags Themes Parks, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Lee v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 130771 , ¶ 66. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rangel v. Brookhaven Constructors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005See also Ross v. Dae Julie, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 1065, 1071 , 793 N.E.2d 68 (2003): Rangel v. Brookhaven Constructors, Inc., 307 Ill. App. 3d 835, 839 , 719 N.E.2d 174 (1999). 2005See also Ross v. Dae Julie, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 1065, 1071 , 793 N.E.2d 68 (2003): Rangel v. Brookhaven Constructors, Inc., 307 Ill. App. 3d 835, 839 , 719 N.E.2d 174 (1999). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.