## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3386 L OLA C A MP, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T NT L O GISTICS C OR PORAT I ON an d T R EL LE BOR G Y S H, I NCO RPORATE D , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 04 C1358

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2008

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 14, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. L ola C am p b r o u g h t t h is dive rs ity act i on a gainst TN T Logi sti cs Cor p. ( “TN T”) and Tr e l l e b o r gY S H, Inc . ( “ Tr e l l e b o r g ” ) , s e e k i ngto re c ov er d am ag es for inj u rie s s h e s u st ain ed as a re su lt o fthe i r a l l e g e d n e g l i g e nc e i n c o nnect i o n wi th the s hi pm en t o f a pal l et o f au to m o bi l e par ts
. The di st r i ctcou rt2 N o. 07

- 3386 g r a n t e d s u mma r y j u d g me n tf o rth e d e fe n d a n t s . C a mp appe al s. W e affi r m , a l th o ug h o n pa r ti al l y di ffer en t gr ounds than tho se re l i ed upon by the di str i ct c ourt
.
I
. Ba ck g r o und D uring the relevan t tim e p eriod, M itsub ishi M otors N or th A m er i ca, Inc . ( “M i tsubi shi ”) m anufa cture d autom obi l es u si ng an effi ci ent a nd co st- effecti ve “j ust- i n-t i m e” i nventory s yst em . U nd erthi s s yst em , aut om oti ve parts fro m suppli er s were del i ver ed to pl ants “j u st in ti m e” to be use d on asse m bl y l i nes. TN T provi ded l ogi sti cs se r vi ce s to M i ts ubi sh i, c o o r di na tingthe pur ch as e an d tr ansp or tat i on o fauto m obi l e par ts fro m suppli er s a s M i tsubi shi ’ s need s a ro se. TN T contr acte d w i th DeK eys er Ex press , Inc. ( “DeK eys er ”) , a m otorcar ri erse rv i ce pr ovide r, to transp ort the p arts. Cam p w orked f or T r a n s p ort Leasi ng Com pany ( “TLC ”)
. TLC l eas ed Cam p’s service s as a tractor-trailer d river to D eK eyser. On Januar y 2 1, 20 03, TN T dir ecte d D eK eys erto tr anspor t s om e par ts from se ver alsuppli er s ( one of w h ich w as T re lleb or g) t o M its u b ish i’s f ac to ry in N or m al, I l l i noi s. DeK eys erdi spatched C am p to m ake the pi ck- up s a nd del i ver y. The next day Ca m p a rrived at Trel l eb or g’ s f aci l i ty, wh i ch w as the fi nalst op on her ro ute. A t Tr el l ebo rg ’ s l oad in g dock, Cam p noti ced that th e three pal l ets o fpart s s cheduled f orpi ck- up would fit i nsi de the tr ai l ero nl y i fthe thi rd pal l et w as sta cked o n top o fo ne o fthe othe r tw o p al l ets
. Cam p w as concerned that the l oad “would notr i de” ( i
. e. , thatthe unsecured pal l et m i ght s hi ft due to the vacantspace next to i t and beN o. 07

- 3386 3 d am aged ). She told T rell eborg p erson ne l of her conc ern an d c o nt ac te d De Key se r di spa tc he r KenKas pr za ka nd TN T tr anspor t s up er vi sorA l an M ar ten t o advi se them o fthe pr o bl em. M ar te n c o nt ac te d D av e F i nc k, TNT’ s o nsi te l i ai son at M i tsubi shi ’ s N or m al, I l l i noi s f acto ry . A fter th e co nv er sa ti o n wi thF i nc k, M ar te n a dvi se d C am p a nd Kas pr za ktha t TN T want ed th e en ti r e l o ad del i ve r ed an d d irected Ca m p to w rite on the billthat TN T w as aw are ofthe si tuati on and was re l eas i ng the s hi pp er( Trel l ebo rg ) and the dri ver( Cam p) fro m r esponsibi l i ty f orany car go dam age . Cam p then wrote the f ol l owing on the bi l l o f l ading : “ S hi ppera nd Dr i ve r r el ea se d of li abi l i tyf o r a ny pr o ductda m ag e as cal l ed TNT an d to l d the m di dn’ t th i nk w oul d ri de. S hi p an yw ay per Dave F i nk [ si c]
. ” Afte r T rell eborg load ed the th ree pa ll ets, Cam p drov e to TN T ’s cr o ss - do ckf ac i li tyl o ca te d a cr o ss the s tr ee t fr o m the Mi t s u b i s h i p l a n t
. B e f o r e b a c k i n gu p t o T NT ’ s d o c k, C a mp sto pp ed i n the parking l ot and opened the r i ght t ra i l er door ; wh en she di d, the unse cured thi rd p alle t be gan t o f al l

. W hen she att em pted to cl ose the tr ai l erdoorto preve n t the pal l et fro m f al l i ng o ut, Cam p i nj ured her s h o u l d e r a n d a r m. C am p fi l ed sui t a gainst TN T and Trel l ebo rgi n I l l i n ois st at e c ou rt, ass er tin g a co m m on -law n eg lige n c e c laim ag ains t ea chde fen dan t ba se d upo n the i r a l l ege d a ct s an d om i ss ion s in connect i on with the tr anspor t o fthe unsecur ed pal l et
. The de fen dan ts r emov ed th e ac ti o n t o the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe Cen tr al D i str i ct o f I l l i no i s byi nv o k i ngthe c o ur t’ s di ve r si tyj ur i sdi ct i o n. The dis tr i ct c ou rt g ranted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r o fthe de fen dan ts o n Ca m p’ s ne g l i g en ce cl ai m s. In do i ng4 N o. 07

- 3386

so , th e c ou rtrejec te d C am p ’s c l a i m th at sh e c ou ld h old TN T l i abl e under tw o provi si ons ofthe Feder alM oto r Carr i erS afetyRegul ati ons ( “FM CSR”) and fo und that C am p had not p resen ted suffi cient a u t h o rity in sup p ort ofher“co m m on l aw st andp oi nt” a rgum ent t o su rv i ve T N T ’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t . T he district cou rt al so hel d that Tr el l ebo rgwas not l i abl e t o Cam p und er th e F M C SRan d th at T re lleb or g ow ed n o d u ty t o h e r in l i g hto fI l l i no i s’ s ope n a nd o b v i o us do c t r i ne . Ca mp a ppeal s.

I I
. Di scussi on O ur review of th e d istri ct cou rt’s grant of su m m ary j u d gm en t is d e n ov o. Gri e ve s on v. Ande rs on , 538 F.3 d 763, 76 7 (7 t h C i r . 2 00 8). W e a ffirm on ly if, afte r vie w in g a ll f a c t s i n the l i g htmo s tf a v o r ab l e t o the n o n- mov a nt( Ca mp) a n d d r a wi n ga l l r e a s o n ab l e i nf er en c e s i n h e r f a v o r, we co nc l ude tha t no g enui ne i ss ue o fmate r i alf ac t ex i st s an d that the d efe n dants ar e e nti tl ed to j ud gm ents as a m att er of law

. P ei ri ck v. Indiana U niv. -Purdue U niv. Indianap olis A thle ti cs D ep’t, 51 0 F
. 3d 68 1, 6 87( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. In a ddi ti o n, w e m ay affi rm on a gr ound o ther than that re l i ed upon by the di s t r i c tc o ur ta s l o nga s the a l t e r na t i v e b a s i s has ad eq u at e s u p p or t in t h e rec or d

. Bom b ar d v
. Fo r tWayne New spa pers , 92 F. 3d 560, 562 (7th Cir. 1996). A s a fe de r a l c o ur ts i t t i ngi n di v e r s i t y, we a pp l y s t a te su b st an tiv e law an d fed er al pr oc ed u ra l la w . Harpe rv. Vig i l a n t I ns . Co. , 4 33 F. 3d 521, 52 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Because n o n e o fth e p a r t i es ra i s e d th e c h o i c e o fl a w i s s u e , weN o. 07

- 3386 5

C am p nev er r e fe r red to this sectio n o f the Illinois V eh icle 1 Code. How eve r, ator al ar gum en tCam p dec l ar ed thatb oth of he r c l ai m s ( aga i ns te ac h de fen dant ) ar e bas ed upo n st ate la w : a c omm o n - l a w c a u s e o fa c t i o n a n d a s t a t u t o r y c a u s e o fa c t i on u n d e r th e s a f e t y r e g u l a t i o n s . We a r e n o ta w a r e o f( a n d C a mp has n o t p o i n t e d t o ) a n y I l l i n o i s s t a t u t e th a t c r e a t e s a c aus e of actio n for a v iola tion o f t h e F M C SR
. H ow ev er, Ca m p d id state th a ta v i o l a t i o n ofth e F MC S R i s e v i d e n c e o fn e g l i g e n c e . We con stru e this state m en t as an assertion tha t the d efend an ts’ (co n tin u ed ...) ap p ly th e su b st an tiv e law of I llin ois , th e fo ru m st at e. Wood v. M id-Valley Inc. , 94 2 F
. 2d 425, 42 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)
. U nd er Illino is law , “[t]o su c c e e d in an ac tio n for n eg lige n c e, a pla i nti ffm ust pro ve f acts thates tabli sh the exi ste nce o f a d uty, a b r ea cho fthe duty, a nd a n inj ur y t o the pl aint i ff w hi ch w as proxi m ate l y c aused by the b reach. ” H i l l s v. B ri dgevie w Lit tl e Lea g u e A ss ’n , 745 N .E .2d 11 66 , 117 8 (Ill. 2000 )
. W hethera du ty ofcar e e xi sts i s a q u es tio n o fl aw f o r the c o ur tt o de c i de , wh i l e b r e a c h a nd p r oxi m ate c au se are qu es tio n s o f fac t fo r th e fa c t-fin d er . Is e b e rg v. G ross , 879 N
. E
. 2d 278, 284 (I ll

. 2007).

A
. St atutory D uty O n ap p eal, Ca m p first cl aim s tha t TN T and Tr e lle b org ar e l i ab l e f o r ne g l i g en ce b as ed o n two pr o vi si o ns o fthe FM C S R , 4 9 C
. F.R. §§ 390
. 13 an d 392.9(a) (1), w hich are ex pl aine d i n de ta i l b el o w. Pa r ts 3 90 a nd 3 92 ( among seve ra l o ther s) o fthe FM CSR ar e a dopted by r efer ence i nto the I l l i noi s Vehi cl e Code by625 I LC S 5/ 18b- 105(b) , p ar t o f 16 N o. 07

- 3386

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 a l l e ge d vi ol a t i onof6 2 5 I LCS 5 / 1 8 b- 1 0 5 ( b)

— w hich incor porates the rel evant prov is ions ofthe FM CSR

— is prim a f aci e evidence o f co m m o n -la w n eg lig en ce u n d er Ill in o is la w . K a la ta v . A n heu serB u sch C os. , 581 N
. E.2d 656, 661 ( Il l. 1991)
. Theref ore, w e procee d w ith the und ers tanding thatCam p is pursuing a com m on-l aw negli ge n ce clai m agains t e ach defendan t bas ed on d is ti nct the or ies of du ty

— s t a t u t o r y a n d t r a di t i o n a l c o mm o n - l a w. th e I l l i no i s M o t o r C a r r i e r S a fe t y L a w. People v. Blacko rb y, 58 6 N. E. 2 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 7( I l l

. 1 9 9 2 )
. “ I n a c o mm o n l aw negl i gence act ion , a vi ol ati on o fa sta tute oro rdi nance d e s i g ne d t o p r o t e c th u ma n l i fe o r p r o p e r t y i s p r i ma fac ie evid en c e of n eg lige n c e; th e v iola tio n d oe s n otco n st itute negl i gence perse . ” Abb as i ex r e l
. Abb as iv. Paras ke voul akos , 71 8 N
. E.2 d 181, 185 (I l l

. 1999)
. “To re cove r d am ages ba sed up on a d efend an t’s all eg e d statu tory vi o l at i o n, a pl aint i ffmusts ho w tha t ( 1) sh e be l o ng s to the clas s o fper sons that the s tatute was desi gned to pro tect; ( 2) h er inj u ryi s o fthe type that the s tatute was desi gned to preve nt; and ( 3) the vi ol ati on pro xi m ate l y c aused her i nj ury. ” Fi rs t Spr i ngf i e l d Bank & Tru s t v. G al m an , 72 0 N. E. 2 d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 1 ( I l l

. 1 9 9 9 )
. We c o ns i de r the a pp l i c a t i on of §§ 390. 13 and 392. 9( a) ( 1) to TN T and Trel l ebo rgse par a t e l y b e l o w.

1
. T NT I ni ti al l y we m ust deter m i ne w hetherthe re l evantsa fety re gul ati ons apply to TN T, f ori ftheydo notTN T coul d not have vi ol ate d them . U nd er49 C. F. R. § 392. 9( a) ( 1) , “[ a]N o. 07

- 3386 7

W hi l e not re l eva nt he re , a “pr i vat e m ot or c ar ri er ” i s “a pe rs on 2 who pr ov i de s t ransp or t a t i ono fpr op e r t y orpa s s e ng e r s , by com m erc ial m otor vehi cl e, and is n o t a f or- hire m otor c arri er .” 4 9 C .F .R . § 3 9 0 .5. Sim il arl y, 49 U.S
. C. § 131 02( 14) defines “m otor c arri er” as “a 3 person providing m otor vehi cl e tr a nsportat ion f or com pensati on. ” A pers oni s “ a nyind ividual, partners hip, as soc iat ion, corpora- 4 t i o n, b u s i n e s s t r u s t, o r a n y o th e r o r g a n i z e d g r o u p o fi n di v i duals

. ” 49 C. F. R
. § 390. 5. dr i ve r may no t o per at e a co m m er ci almot o r v eh i cl e an d a m oto r car ri erm ay not re quir e o r perm i t a drive r to op er at e a co m m er c i a l m ot or ve h icle u n l e s s 1 ) th e c o mm er ci almot o r v eh i cl e’ s ca r g o i s p r o per l y di st r ibut ed an d adequatel y s ec ured as speci fi ed i n §§ 393. 100 thro ugh 393. 136 ofthis subchap ter
. ” A ccor ding to 49 C.F
. R. § 390. 5, a “ mot o r c a r r i e r ” i s “ a fo r-hire m o to r carrier ora pri vate m oto r car ri er .” (em phasi s a dd ed). The sa m e r egul ati on 2 defines a “for - hi re m ot orcar ri er ” a s “ a per son engag ed i n the t r an spo r ta ti o n o f go o ds o r pa ss en g er s f o r c o m pen sat i on. ” 49 C. F. R. § 390. 5. A “per son” i ncl ud es a co rpor a-

3 ti o n l i k e TN T. Id. 4 Cam p argues that § 39 2. 9( a) ( 1) appli es t o TN T because TN T had a m oto r car ri erli cense and w as acting as a m o to r ca r r i er . M o r e par ti cul ar l y, Camp c o nt en ds th at the f ol l owing f acts dem onst ra te that TN T m ai ntai ned de f acto controlo verthe car go shi pm ent a nd thus a cted as a m oto r car ri er : TN T planned the co nfi gura ti on of th e l oad wi th i t s s o ft wa r e , de t e r mi n e d th e s u p p l i e r s t o p s C a mp m ade, and m apped the ro ute s he to ok; TN T em p loyee8 N o. 07

- 3386

A broker i s “a pers on, otherthan a m otor c arri er or an 5 em pl oye e or ag en tofa m ot or c ar ri er, thatas a pri nc i pal or a ge nts e l l s , o ffe r s f ors a l e , n e go t i a t e s f or, o r ho l ds i t s e l fo utby s ol i c i t at i on, adve rt i s em en t, o r othe rwi s e as s el l i ng, pr ovi di ng, or arr anging f or, tr ansportat ion by m otor carr ie r f or com pensatio n .” 4 9 U .S.C . § 1 3 1 0 2 (2 ). Dave F i nck m ade the deci si on that a l l thr ee pal l ets had to b e t ra n sp or te d ; an d T N T d ec id ed th at th e t ra ile r w ou ld not have the l oad-barbr aci ng equi pm ent that hel ps to secur e the ca rg o. TN T, o n the othe r hand , m ai ntai ns thati ts m er e posse ssi on of a m oto r car ri erl i cense i s no t di sposi ti ve an d a sse r ts tha t i t was a ct i nga s a br o k er r athe r tha n a 5 m oto r car ri er . In additi on, TN T ar gues that it did not provi de m otorcar ri erse rv i ces f orM i tsubi shiand that DeKe y se r was the m o to r car r i erbec au se i t was c o nt r ac tu
al l y obl i gat ed to supply the dr i ver, tr uck, and equi pm ent. W e a gr ee w ith T N T that the fact i t pos ses sed a m oto r car ri erl i cense i s no t dete rm i nati ve ofthe applic abi l i ty of § 39 2.9( a) ( 1) ; i nstea d, the c ruci ali nquir y i s in w hat c ap ac ity T N T w as ac tin g d u rin g t h e t ra n sa c t ion
. See, e.g., P aul Arpin Van Line s, Inc. v . U niversal Transp. Servs. , Inc. , 98 8 F.2 d 28 8, 29 2 (1 st C ir. 19 93 ); S c h r a mm v. Fo ster, 3 4 1 F
. S up p. 2d 536, 54 9 ( D. M d. 2004 )
. Only i f TN T w as functi oni ng as “a perso n enga ged i n the tr ansp or tati on o fgo ods o r passenge rs f orco m pensati on” does § 3 92. 9( a) ( 1) apply

. 4 9 C.F
. R. § 390. 5. “Tr anspor tat i on” i s defi ned as (A ) a m o t or vehicle, vessel, w areh ou se, w ha rf, pier, dock, y a r d, p r o pe r t y, f a c i l i t y, i ns t r ume nt a l i t y, o r equi pm ent o fany ki nd r el ate d to th e m ovem ent o f p assen gers or prop erty, or both , reg ard less ofow ne r-N o. 07

- 3386 9 shi p oran agr eem ent c oncerni ng use; and ( B) s er vi ces related to that m ovem en t, includ ing arran ging for, receip t, d eli very, elevation, tran sfer in trans it, refr igerati on, i ci ng, ve nti l ati on, st or age , hand ling, packing, un pa c k i ng, a nd i nt e r c ha ng e o fp a s s e ng e r s a nd p r o per ty. 49 U
. S. C. § 1 3102 ( 23)
. TN T d id n ot enga ge i n the actual m o ve m en t o fthe a ut o m o bi l e par ts unde r the fi r stpr o ng ofthe tr anspor tat i on defi ni ti on. Ind eed, the contr act between TN T an d D eKeyserpro vi des thatDeK eys erwas re sponsibl e forsupplying the t ruck, dri ver, and ass oci ate d eq u ip m en t fo r th e m ov em en t o f th e c ar go , an d th er e is no que st ion t hat DeKe y se r ( no t TN T) pr o vi ded th e dri verand tr uck that m ove d the auto part s. Cam p argues that TN T provi ded “s er vic es rel ate d to th[ e] m ov em en t” ofthe car go und erthe seco nd pro ng o f th e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n de fi n i t i o n . 4 9 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 1 0 2 ( 2 3 )
. We d i s a g r e e . A l th o u g h T NT d e t e r mi n e d t h e s t o p s C a mp m ade and the ro ute s he to ok, r athe r th an being services perta i ni ng to the m ove m ent o fthe a u tom obi l e par ts th e s e a c t i o n s we r e me r e l y d e t a i l s u p o n w hi c h T NT i nsi ste d to ensure thatthe del i ver y o fthe parts by DeK e y s e r wo ul d b e o n t i me. T he s a me wa s a l s o t r ue o f TN T’s deci si on that the thir d pall et had to be del i ver ed des pi te i ts i ns tabi l i ty
. TNT’ s det er m i na tion th atthe tr ai l erwou ld nothave l oad-barbr aci ng equi pm ent was al so not a s er vi ce ger m ane t o the m ove m ent o fthe car go but was i nstea d a condi ti on under which the actual m ove men to fthe g o o ds b y De Ke y s e r wa s t o t a k e pl ace. Tha t TN T pl anne d the c o nfi g ur at i o n o fthe l o ad o n the10 N o. 07

- 3386 tr ai l erwith i ts soft w ar e m i ght, atfi rs t g l ance, se em to be a se r vi ce b y whi chTNT “a r r an g [ ed] f o r ” th e m o vem ent of the cargo; h o w ever, this configuration sc he m e is m ore ac cur at ely v i ewe d as a det ai l per ta i ni ngt o the po si ti o ni ng o f th e c a r g o o n De Ke y s e r ’ s t r a i l e r s u p o n wh i ch TNT i nsi ste d i n ord er t o f aci l i tat e the sm oo th o perat i on o f M i tsubi shi ’ s “j ust- i n-t i m e” sys tem
. Fo r thes e rea sons, TN T’ s ac ti o ns di d no t r i se to th e l ev el o f p rovi di ng se r vi ce s r el at ed to the move m ent of the pa r ts a nd thus TN T w as not acting as a “m oto r car ri er . ” Rather, T N T w as a thi rd- partyl ogi sti cs c om pany w hose m ai n f ocus w as the t i m el y a nd effi ci ent pr ocur em ent o fa u to part s for M i tsubi shi

. TN T’s ro l e was thato f a “ b ro ker ” who, o n be ha l fo fM i ts ubi sh i, “ ne g o ti at [ ed] f o r . . . t r an spo r ta ti o n” by DeK eys er that w oul d s ati sfy the dem ands of the “ j u sti n- ti m e” s y st em. 49 U. S
. C. § 1 31 02 ( 2)
. The r efo r e, 4 9 C. F
. R. § 392. 9( a) ( 1) do es no t appl y t o TNT an d thus i t o wed no d ut y to Ca m p un d er this prov isi on. Th e d istri ct cou rt c or re c tly gra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t fo r T N T on th is i ssue. T h e d i s t r i c t c ou rtals o h eld th at C am p co u ld n oth old TN T l i ab l e unde r § 3 90
. 13 b ecause s he woul d b e su i ng TN T f o r a i d i n ga n d ab e t t i n gh e r o wnv i o l a t i o n o fthe F M CS R. Und e r 4 9 C. F
. R. § 3 9 0. 13, “ [ n] o p e r s o n s ha l l a i d, ab e t, e n c o u r a g e , o r r e q u i r e a mo t o r c a r r i e r o r i t s e mplo yee s t o vi ol ate the ru l es ofthi s chapte r. ” Cam p argues that TN T vi ol ate d § 39 0. 13 w hen i t e ncoura ged he r to tr anspor t the thi rd pal l et i n an unsecured s tate a s pro s c r i b ed by § 39 2.9 (a)( 1). C am p is co rre c t t h at th e p lain l anguage o f§ 390. 13 appli es to a “ perso n” r ega rdl ess of i ts functi on, and not j ust perso ns acting as dri ver s a nd m oto r car ri er s a s with § 3 92. 9( a)
. H owever, l i ke the di str i ct c ourt,N o. 07

- 3386 11

A shipper is “[a] p ers on w ho se nd s or recei ves property wh ic h 6 (co n tin u ed ...) w e con clud e tha t I ll inois c ase law prec lud es C am p ’s re cove ryunder § 390. 13. Speci fi cal l y, under I l l i noi s l aw , a pla i nti ffcannot r ec o ve r fr o m a de fen dan t forthe de fen dan t’ s ai di nga nd abet ti ng the pl ai nti ff’ s o w n to rt i ous con du ct. The cas e o f H udki ns v. Egan , 847 N
. E.2 d 1 45 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 06) , es tabl i sh ed th i s pr i nc i pl e o fl aw. In H udki ns , a dri verl ostco ntro l o fa c ara nd di ed i n the a cc i den t. 847 N. E. 2d at1 47
. The d eced en t’s ad m inis t r a trix su ed one of the d eced en t’s fr i en ds who was r i d ing i n the c arf o r e nc o ur ag i ngthe d ec ed en t t o d riv e re c kle ss ly. Id. The Ill i noi s Ap pel l ate Court hel d tha t th e dece dent as the di re ct t or tfeas or co ul d no t ha ve r ec o ve r ed as a th i r d- par ty vi ct i m fr o m the fr i en d who en co ur ag ed he r t o dr i ve da ng er o us l y ( i
. e. , the i n d ire c t t or tfe as or ). Id. a t1 4 9

- 5 0
. C a mp’ s a i d i n ga nd ab et tin g c laim is c on tr olle d b y t h is c om m on -law p rin c ip le fr om H udkin s : Ca m p, a s th e per so n who o per at ed th e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r wi th the un s e c ur e d pa l l e t c o nt r a r y t o § 3 92. 9( a) ( 1) , cannotr eco verfro m TN T as a th ird -party vi cti m under § 390. 13 f ori ts ro l e in encour agingher t o v i o l a t e § 3 9 2
. 9 ( a ) ( 1 )
. T he r e f o r e , the di s t r i c tco ur tp r o per l y g ra nted TN T sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n this th eory a s w ell.

2. Trelleborg On a ppea l, Ca m p c o nc ede d tha t Tr el l eb o r gwas ac ting as a s hi pp er r atherthan as a m oto r c ar rie r and that 612 N o. 07

- 3386

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 i s t r a n s p o r t e d i n i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n c o mm e r c e . ” 4 9 C
. F
. R. § 37 6 .2(k ). § 39 2. 9( a) ( 1) do es no t appl y to i t. Howev er, Ca m p m ainta i ns tha ts he ma y h o l d T r e l l e b o r gl i ab l e u nd e r § 3 90. 13 f o r a i di nga nd a be tt i nghe r o wn vi o l at i o ns o fthe F M CS R. The prin c ip l e fro m H udki ns wh i ch w e di scusse d above app l i e s e qu a l l y t o T r e l l e b o r g . Ac c o r di ng l y, Ca mp c a nnot r ec o ve r fr o m Tr el l eb o r gf o r i ts pa r t i n a i di nga nd abe tt i ng her own vi ol ati ons ofthe FM CSR, and thus the di str i ct cour t pr oper l y g ra nted Trel l ebo rgsum m ar y j ud gm ent.

B
. Com m on-law D uty 1
. T NT Cam p al so chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a w ar d of sum m ar y j ud gm ent forTN T b ase d up on a tr adit i onal com m on- l aw duty appro ach. The co urt deter m i ned that Cam p f ai l ed to support thi s “ theo ry ” with any author i ty a n d th a t he r b a r e s t a t e me n tth a t“ T NT i s l i ab l e fr o m a com m on la w standp oi nt” was noteno ugh to sur vi ve su m m ar y j udg m en t. Ca m p a cc ur at ely poi nt s o uttha t sh e di d i n f a c t o ffe r s o me a utho r i t y ( a lb e i t a t the v e r y end of her Response and i n the sec tio n i n w hi ch she opposed Trellebo rg ’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent) i n supp or t o f her posi ti on that TN T owed hera c om m on- l aw duty o f c ar e and stat ed that TN T bre ached thatduty. W e will ass um e without deci ding that the a uthor i ty w hi ch Cam p m enti oned w as suffi ci ent t o prese rv e a nd advance her ar gum ent that TN T owed hera com m on- l aw duty.N o. 07

- 3386 13 C am p says th at T N T m istaken ly sch ed uled the th ird pal l et, f ai l ed to a r r an g e f o r b r ac i nge qui pm ent in the tr ai l erwh en it k n ew ther e would be an unsec ured pal l et, f ai l ed to expedit e the pal l et b y an ot h ertr uck, f ai l ed to sugge st that the pal l et coul d be br oke n dow n i nto sm all er pieces , a n d f ail ed to adv ise her and Trelleborg tha tthe p a l l e t shou l d b e do ub l e - s t a c k e d o n the r i g hts i de of the t ra i l er . A ccor ding to Cam p, thes e f acts i nd i cate that T N T breach ed the com m on-law du ty of care it ow ed her. I n I l l i noi s, “[ t] he exi ste nce o fa du ty d ep ends on whe th e r th e p l a i n t i ff a n d th e d e fe n d a n t s t o o d i n s uch a re l ati onshi p to each o therthatthe l aw wil l i m p ose upon th e defen dan t ano bl i g at i o n o fr ea so nabl e co nd uc t fo r the benefi t o fthe pla i nti ff

. ” Ba j wa v . Me t r o . L i

f eIn s . C o. , 8 04 N
. E.2 d 519, 526 (I l l

. 2004)
. “Th i s qu est i on turns l ar gel y o n pu bl i c pol i cy consi derat i ons, info rm ed by consi derat i on off our tr adit i onal f acto rs : ( 1) the re aso nabl e for ese eabi l i ty of th e inj u ry ; (2 ) t h e like lih oo d o f t h e inj u ry ; (3) th e m ag n itu de o fthe b ur deno fg ua r di nga g ains t th e i nj ur y ; a nd ( 4) the c o ns eque nc es o fpl ac i ngtha t bu rd en o n the de fen dant. ” City of

Chi ca go v . Be r e t t a U.S
. A. Corp. , 82 1 N
. E.2 d 1099 , 11 25 ( I l l

. 20 06)
. W hetherthes e f acto rs cr eat e a com m on- l aw d u ty i s a questi on o fl aw f orthe cour t. Iseberg, 87 9 N
. E.2 d at 2 84. Aft e r c o n s i d e r i n gth e s e f a c t o r s , we c o n c l u d e tha tT NT did noto w e Cam p a duty o f c are. A s e vi denced by her e x p r e s s i o n s o fc o n c e r n t o Tr e l l e b o r g, D e Ke y s e r, a n d T NT pers o nn e l, the r e i s no qu e s t i o n tha t Ca mp wa s a wa re o f the r i sk that th e thi r d p a l l e tmi g hts hi ftdu r i ngthe t r i p. M o r e o v e r, C a mp t e s t i fi e d a t h e r d e p o s i t i o n th a t sh e14 N o. 07

- 3386

Cam p ar gue s thatthe del ibera te en c ount ere xc ept i on t o the 7 op e n a nd o bvi ou s do c t r i ne ( di sc us s e d i nf ra n.8) ap p lies to thi s c as e. Under thi s e xc ept i on, ha rm i s f or es ee abl e t o a posse ss or ofl and i fhe “‘ has r eas on to ex pect that the i nvitee w il l proc eed to e ncounter the know n or obv ious dan ger bec ause to a re as onabl e m an i n h i s pos i t i on the adva nt age s of do ing s o w ould outw ei gh the apparent ri sk. ’ ” L aF ev er v . K em li te C o. , a Di v. of

Dyro- Tech Indus. , Inc. , 706 N
. E.2d 441, 448 ( Il l. 1998) ( quo t i ng R ESTA TEMENT (S ECO ND ) OF T ORTS § 34 3A, Com m en tf , at 220 ( 1965) )
. This exc epti on is m ost often app li ed in c ase s in v o lv in g ec o n o m iccom pu ls ion. Sol l amiv. Eat on , 772 N
. E.2d 215, 2 2 4 (Il l

. 2 0 0 2 ). A s w e l a te r e m p h a siz e, i n f ra p. 18 , we ha ve not ext ended Ill in ois ’ s open and obv ious do ct ri ne t o thi s cas e. H owev e r , we wi l l a s s u me f o r th e s a k e o f a r g u me n t th a t t he p rinc ip le inh eren t in the d elib era te en cou nte r excep tion to th a td o c t r i n e is r e l e v a n tto T N T ’s f o r e se e a b i l i t y o f C a m p ’s inju ries. knew that there was a possib ilitythe unsecured pal l et ha d sh i fte d i n tr an si t, th at i t m i g ht ha ve be enl eaning ag ains t th e tr ai l erdo o r s, a nd tha t it m i g htf al l o uti fthe tr ai l er door s w er e opened. U nd er these ci rcum sta nces, T N T co u ld n oth av e re as on ab ly for es ee n th at C am p w ou ld o p e n th e t r a i l e r d o o r s i n a w a y th a tw o u l d c a u s e h e r h a r m. Cam p asse rt s that s he was und erec on om i c co m pu l si on fr o m TN T t o e nc o unt erthe da ng erpo se d b y the pa l l eta nd that ther ef or e heri nj uri es w er e f or ese eabl e. S he poi nts t o 7 the fol l owing l anguage in the M ast erA gr eem ent b etween TN T and D eKeyseras ev i dence thatTN T had contr olo ver he r or he r em p loym en t statu s: “W he n d irected by [TN T ], [ DeK eys er] s hal l cause any [ DeK eys er ] Em plo yee to beN o. 07

- 3386 15

r emov ed fr o m pr o vi di ngServ i ce s he r eu nde r . ” Assu m i ng th at C am p q u alifie s as D eK ey se r’s “e m p loy ee ,” a l l t h is quo te d pa ss ag e d em o ns tr at es i s th atTNT co ul d pr ev en t Cam p f ro m pro vi ding car ri erse rvic es t o TNT
. C a mp i g no r es th e pr o vi si o n fr o m th e sa m e se ct i o n o fthe TN T/DeK eys erco ntra ct which s tat es: “ [ TN T] shal l have no a uthor i ty to, o n behal fo f[ DeK eys er ] o r ot h er w i se, di sc ha r g e, prom o te , s us pen d o r o th er wi se di sc i pl i ne a n y [ De Ke y s e r ] e mpl o y e e p r o v i d i n gs e r v i c e s f o r T NT h e r e u n d e r . ” T h u s , T NT c o u l d n o th a v e t a k e n a nye mplo ym ent a cti on a gainst Cam p; atm osti t coul d have dir ecte d DeK eys ern ot to lea se Cam p’s ser vi ces as a dri ver fro m T L C w h en p ro vid in g fu tu re se rv ice s t o T N T . Th is p art of th e M aster A greem en t d oes not s u p p ort Ca m p ’s ass er ti on that s he was und er econom i c co m pu l si on fro m TN T to encounterthe pal l et. Camp al so co nt en ds th ato th erpr o vi si o ns i n the TN T/DeK eys erag re em ent s how t hat “ add i ti onalco nseq u en c es” co uld have ar i sen fro m herr efusalto enco unter th e k no wn r i sk

. H o wev er, th e se ct i o ns o f th e a g r ee m en t th at she ci tes st ate that D eKeyser c o u l d b e l i ab l e t o T NT i fi ts er ro r l ed to a pla nt shutd ow n o r th e nee d fo r expedit ed tr anspor tat i on. B ecause thes e pass age s do not show that Cam p coul d have be en hel d l i abl e t o TN T, she w as not econ om i cal l y c om pel l ed by TN T to encounterthe unsecured pal l et. A s add i ti onalpro ofo fhereco nom i c co m pu l si on ( this ti m e fr o m De Key se r ) t o e nc o unt erthe r i skpo se d b y the th ird pal l et, Cam p stat ed that at a r ecentDeK eys ersa fety m ee tin g she had bee n to l d that s he would l ose herj ob16 N o. 07

- 3386 i fany parts were dam age d d ue to i m properl oadi ng o r h er negl i gence as a dri ver . W e fi nd thi s f act i rr el evant, f ori n or der for C am p’s eco nom i c co m pu l si on fro m DeK eys erto have bea ring o n TN T’s f or ese eabi l i ty of Cam p’s i nj u rie s, TN T m ust hav e know n orhad re aso n to kn ow o f su c h circ u m st an c es . See B uerk ett v. Illino is P o w er Co. , 89 3 N
. E.2 d 7 02 , 710 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 08) ( sta ti ng tha t “t h e focus w i th the del iber ate
- encounteranal ysi s i s o n w ha t the l an d ow ne r a nt i cip a tes or sho uld an ticip a te th e entr ant wil l do” ( em phasi s add ed))

. Because Cam p has no t produced any e vi dence that T N T knew or shoul d have know n o fthe re centl y i m ple m ented DeK eys erpol i cy, the del iber ate enco unter pri nci ple does notapply

. A s itw as w ith t h e for es ee ab ility fa c to r, C am p ’s k n ow led ge is esp eciall y rel e v a n t to the li keli hood of inj ury f acto r. A r eas onable p er son i n Cam p’s shoe s would have re ad ily appreci ate d and avoi ded the danger she knew w as l urking be hi nd the tr ai l erdoor s. There f ore, fro m TN T’s perspect i ve ther e w as at m ost a sl i gh t li kel i hood that Cam p w oul d be inj ured i n l i gh t of her knowle dge ab ou t t h e d an ge r p os ed by th e p alle t. The l atter two f acto rs do notco unseli n f avo r of fi nd i ng that T N T owed Cam p a duty o fcar e. A l though TN T coul d have cho sen no t t o askf orthe pal l et to be sh ipp ed or cou ld h ave tak en other step s t o a v o id Ca m p ’s i nj uri es, C am p w as i n a b ett erposi ti on t o preve nt her i nj uri es because she could h ave opened the tr ai l erdoor ina w ay th at d id n otp u t h er atrisk ofi nju r y or c ou ld ha ve sou gh t D eK eyser’s assistan ce an d direction b efore doi ng so . In additi on, Cam p had been r el eas ed fro mN o. 07

- 3386 17

Under I l l i noi s l aw, a c om pone nto f the f or es ee abi l i t y f ac t or 8 ofthe c om m on- l aw duty an al ys i s i s the ope n a nd obvi ous d o ct ri n e. War d v. K M ar tC orp. , 55 4 N .E .2d 22 3 , 23 2 (Ill . 19 9 0 ). Thi s doc t ri ne pr ovi des that“person s w ho own, oc c upy, or con tro l and m ain tain land are n ot o rd i n arily requ ired to f or es ee and pro t ec t aga i ns ti nj ur i es fro m pot en t i al l y dan ge ro us conditi ons that ar e open and obv ious. ” B u chele res v. C hicago P ark D ist. , 66 5 N. E. 2d 8 26 , 83 2 ( I l l

. 19 96 )
. The Su pre m e Cour tof Il li nois has als o app li ed this doctri ne t o precl u de a m anufac

- (co n tin u ed ...) l i abi l i ty f ordam age to the c ar go a n d coul d have o pened the doo r, retr eat ed to safety, and l et the c hi ps ( i
. e, the auto par ts ) f al l wher e th ey m ay . I t woul d be an o ne r o us b u rd en for T N T to gu ar d ag ain st inju rie s w h ich res u lt fro m a perso n’s vo l untaryenco unter w i th a known r i sk. M o r eo ve r, TNT woul d ha ve t o e xpe nd s i g ni fi ca nt re sour ces ove rs eeing the act i ons of it s m oto r car ri er s’ dri ver s we re a du ty i m posed i n thes e ci rcum sta nces. A c c or d in gly , for th es e re as on s w e c on c lu d e t h at T N T d id not owe a duty o fcar e t o Cam p und erI l li noi s co m m on l aw a nd tha t su m m ar y j udg m en t was a ppr o pr i at e f o r TNT.

2. Trelleborg Cam p next as ser ts that the di stri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o f sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o T re l l ebo rgo n herco m m on- l aw duty th eory w as im p rop er. T he d istri ct court he ld th a t C a m p ’s ar gum ent that Tr el l ebo rgo w ed hera com m on- l aw duty f o unde r ed be ca us e th e uns tabl e pal let w as a n o pena nd obviou s d an ger. W e are no t a w are of an y I ll inois court 818 N o. 07

- 3386

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 tu re r’s d u ty to w a rn in th e p ro d u ct lia b ili ty co n te xt
. So l l a mi, 772 N
. E.2d at 219. tha th a s a pp l i e d the o pe n and ob v i o us do c t r i ne o ut s i de ofthe prem i ses o r product l i abi l i ty ar enas to a s i tuati on w h er e, as h er e, a p l a i n tiff k n ow in gly en c ou n te rs a c on d iti on l oca ted o n the perso nalpro pertyo fa thi rd- party that wa s c r e a t e d b y a de fe nd a nt
. I t may b e pl a us ibl e t o e x t e n d th e o p e n a n d o b v i o u s p r i n c i p l e t o th e c i r c u ms t a nc e s o fthi s c a s e . Ho w eve r, we n e e d n o tde c i de w hetherthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s E rie - appl i ca ti o n ( Eri eR. R. Co. v . To mpki ns , 304 U
. S. 64, 78 ( 1938 ) ) o fthe doctr i ne was appropri ate bec ause w e co ncl ud e that Tr el l ebo rgdi d not o we a duty o fc ar e to Ca m p b as ed upo n the f ol l o wi ng tr adit i onalco m m on- l aw duty analysi s. Camp s t a t e d tha tT r e l l e b o r gl o a de d the thi r d pal l et and m ade the deci si on t o sta ck i t o n to p ofanotherpal l et on th e d riv er ’s s id e o f th e t ra iler. C am p p oin ts to te st im ony that “Truckl oadi ng 101” tea ches that double

- sta cked fre i ght with an adj ace n t em pty s pace s houl d al w ays be p laced on th e pa ssen ger’s sid e beca us e road w ays are cro w ned i n the cente r and fr ei ght wil l i nvar i abl y sh ift to the r i ght. S tack i ng o n the l eft i s purpor tedl y a n i m proper tr ucki ng pra cti ce. Based o n thes e f acts , Cam p argues that Trel l ebo rgdevi ate d fr om t he co m m on- l aw duty o f care it ow ed her. H owever, l i ke TN T, T re llebo rgco uld nothave r easonab l y f o r e s e e n tha tCa mp wo ul d c ho o s e t o e nc o un t er th e r i skof the thi r d pa l l etf al l i ngo uto fthe t r ucka ndN o. 07

- 3386 19

In s up port ofher pos it ion, Cam p cit es two u npu blis hed 9 o p in io n s: H ol m es v. G oodye arTi re& R ubberC o. , N o. 96 C 345, 1 9 9 7W L 106104 ( N. D. I l l

. F e b. 1 2 , 1 9 9 7 ) a nd R ee d v. A ceDoran Haul i ng & R iggi ng C o. , N o. 95 C 4082 , 19 97 W L 17 78 40 ( N .D
. Ill. Apr. 7, 19 97 )
. I n H ol m es , a t ruck driver w as inj ured w h en a ti re st ruck him as he opened the d o o r to t h e trai le r he had been hauling. 1997 W L 106104, at * 1. The court hel d that Goo dy ear (the loa d er o f t h e c a r g o) ow ed a d u ty to m inim ize h arm to w h o m ev er o p en ed th e se a le d lo a d

. Id. a t *3
. H ol m es is i nappo s i t e bec aus e the pl ai nt iffin thatc as e pi c ke d up the tr ail er afteri t had been loaded and s eal ed a n d t h er ef ore had no k now l edge thatthe t i re pos ed a r i s k off al l i ng whe n h e opened the tr ail er door s. Id. at* 1. Unl i ke the dri veri n H ol m es , Ca m p k n e w thatthe uns ec ur ed pa l l etpos ed a r i s k off al l i ng o u t w h en sh e o p en ed th e t ra ile r d o o r. R eed is also d isting u isha b le. In th at ca se, the v eh icle in w hich the p lain tiff w as rid ing w as stru ck b y a steel coil tha t fell offofa fl atbed t ru c k w hen the t ru c k dr i verl os tc ont ro l ofthe tr u ck

. R eed, 199 7 W L 1 77840, at *1. The d is tr ic t c ourt hel d that th e l o a d er o f th e c o il o w ed a c o m m o n -la w d u ty to th e p la in tiff to ch ec k th e l o a d an d to en su re th a t it w a s sa fel y sec u re d

. Id. at* 4. I n c ont ra s tt o thi s c as e, the pl ai nt i ffi n R eed was ne i the r the dr i ve r o fthe t r uc k tha twa s i m pr op e r l y l oa de d n ordi d h e h a ve pri or kno wle dge ofthe ins t abi l i t y ofthe coi l and i t s c onc om i t ant ri s k t o h i s s afety. the i nj ur i e s s he r e c e i v e d fr o m t r y i ngt o c l o s e the t ra i l er d o o r . C a mp k n e w th e th i r d p a l l e t wa s u n s e c u r e d

. C a mp als o kn ew th e p a l l e t m ay h av e s h ifte d in t ra n sit, th at it m i g htha ve b ee n l ea ni nga g ains t the t ra i l erdo o r s, a nd tha ti tmi g htf a l l o uti fthe t r a i l e r do o r s we r e o pe ne d. 920 N o. 07

- 3386

Cam p als o a rg u es t hat the dis tr ic t c ourt abused it s disc re- 10 t i on when i tdee m ed a dm i t t ed c er t ai n f ac t s listed i n the defen d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s . T h e c o u r tma d e th i s d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e C a mp d id no t com p ly w ith C en tral D istrict of Ill ino is Lo cal R u le 7. 1( d) ( 2) ( b) ( 2) , whi c h i ns t ru c t s thatc l ai m s ofdi s put ed f acts m us tbe s uppor t ed by s pec i fi c r eferences t o e vi dent i ar y doc um en t at ion . W e do no tr ea c h thi s i s s ue bec aus e we ha ve pro - (co n tin u ed ...) I n additi on, the l i kel i hood o fi nj ury w as quit e l ow fr om Trel l ebo rg ’ s v antag e point be cause a r eas onabl e per son wi thCa m p’ s kn ow l edg e woul d ha ve a ppr ec i at ed an d a v o i d e d th e d a n g e r p o s e d b y th e p a l l e t
. The o th e r t wo f acto rs i n the t r a di t i o na l c o mm o n- l a w du t y a na l y s i s do no tmi l i t a t e i n f avo r o ffi nd i ngT r e l l e b o r go we d C a mp a du ty ofcar e. T ru e, Trel l ebo rg, aftero ffer i ng notto l oad the thi rd pal l et, co uld h ave re fused to l oad i t o r at l eas t co ul d ha ve l o ade d i t o n the r i g htside ofthe t r ai l er . ( The r ec o r d do es no t r efl ec t whethe r Cam p obj ec te d t o l o ading the pal l et on the l eft s i de. ) H owever, as st ate d bef or e, Cam p w as i n a s up er i orposi ti on t o preve nt heri nj uri es. I t w ou ld be a w e ig ht y bu rd en f or Trelleborg to guard aga i ns t i nj ur i es t o a pe r so n who was ful l y a war e o fthe d an ge r to w h ich sh e e x p os ed h er se lf. T re ll ebo rg ’ s res p on sib ilitie s a s a sh ip p er of ca rg o w ou ld be ex p an d ed gre at ly at co ns i de r ab l e e xp e ns e we r e i tr e qu i r e d t o o v e r see the c onduct ofm oto r car ri erdri ver s ( re tained by o ther s) th att r an spo r t i ts pr o duct s. F o r the se r eas o ns , we co ncl ud e that Tr el l ebo rgdi d not o w e a co m m on- l aw d u ty to Cam p and that i t was entitled to a j ud gm ent a s a m att er o fl a w. 10N o. 07

- 3386 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 cee ded i n thi s opinion w ithout deem ing any f act s a d m it ted by Ca m p.

1- 14- 09 I I I
. Concl usi on Based upon the f or ego i ng analysi s, we concl ud e that TN T did not owe a du ty to Cam p und er§ 39 2.9 ( a) ( 1) b ec au se it w as n otac tin g a s a m ot or ca rrie r. W e a lso h old that Illinoi s l aw does notper m i t Cam p to hol d TN T or Trell ebor gl i ab l e unde r § 3 90
. 13 f o r a i di nga nd abe tt i ng he r o wn vi o l at i o n of§ 3 92
. 9( a) ( 1)
. In a ddi ti o n, we co nc l ud e that nei the r T NT n o r T r e l l e b o r go we d C a mp a com m on- l aw d u ty o fcar e. A ccor dingl y, the dist ri ct co ur t’ s g r an t of su m m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe de fen dants i s A FFI RMED .