THIRD DIVISION Decem ber 31, 2008

No. 1-07- 2335 AN THONY

GRIL LO, ) Appeal from the ) Cir cu it Co ur t o f Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) ) YEA GER C ONSTR

UCTIO N, )

) Defend ant -Ap pellant ) ) ) Honorables ( Ru bina Sh ak ir a nd So lha il Sh ak ir, a/ k/ a S am ) Wi ll ia m J . Haddad, Sha ki r, ) Jef frey Lawrence , ) Judg es Pr

esi di ng. Def endan ts-A ppel l ees ). ) JU STI CEQUIN

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plaint iff , Ant hony Gr ill

o s uffere d injuries w hen he fell fro m scaffolding while per for ming mas o nr y wo rk o n t he co nst ruc t io n o f a n ew ho us e fo rSo ha il (a /k /a Sa m) a nd Ru bina Sh ak ir in Nort hbrook, Ill

in ois. Plai ntif f f il ed a compl

ai nt at law agai

nst the Shaki

rs and def endan t, Yeager Con str uc ti on , a l l eg i

n g c om mon -law n eg l i gen ce . In

h i s c om pl ai n t, p l ai n ti f f al l eg ed th at def en da n t wa s th e g en era l con tractor of the constru cti on s i te a nd tha t Da vi d Y eage r wa s a

n e m pl oyeeor age nt of d efenda nt . P rio r t o t rial, t he circ uit co ur t gr ant ed s ummary judg ment in favo r o f the1-07-2335

-2-

Shak irs and also dismissed d efenda nt ’s co nt ribut ion co unt er claim against t he Sha kirs. Fo llowing a trial , the jury

returned a verdict in f

avor of plai

ntif f an d assess ed pl ai

ntif f’ s dam ages at $1, 834 ,49 6. O n a

ppe al , de f en da nt c onte nds th at: ( 1) th e c i rcu i t cou rt er red i n d en y i ng i ts m oti on f or j udgm en t n otwi th sta n di n g th e v erdi ct ( j udgm en t n.o.v.) wher e plaint iff

failed t o e st ablish a prima facie

cas e of ne gli gen ce; (2) def

endan t is en titl ed to a new trial

due to v arious errors com m i tted b y the ci rcu i t cou rt; an d (3 ) th e c i

rcu i t cou rt er red i n e nte ri ng su m mary j udg men t f or the Shaki rs on defe ndan t’s contributi on counterclai m a gai nst them . For t he f

oll owing reas ons, we af f i rm . I. Background At t ria l, p laint iff te st ified t hat he h ad o ver 30 yea rs o f maso nr y exp er ienc e. Pla int iff testifi ed that he fi

rst learne d of the Shaki

r residen tial construction project in

August 2001, when he r ece ived a t elepho ne ca ll f ro m David Ye age r a t Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion. Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat he
met wi th Da vi d at the constructi on si

te i n N orthbr ook, Ill i noi s, to neg otiate

a pri ce f or masonr y work. Plain

tif f m et with Dav

id on h is fi rst and second vi

si ts to the construction si

te, and they or ally agree d t o a co nt ra ct pr ice du ring p laintiff’s thir d visit t o t he sit e. Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat he as ke d D avid , “ Who is g o ing t o pa y me?” a nd “ [W ]h o is g ua ra nt ee ing t he mo ney?” Pla int iff testifi ed that David repli

ed, “[N]ot me. Yeager Construction.” Pla in tif f testif ie d that he saw veh ic le s wi th the Yeager Construction logo at the construction si te. Plai ntif f testif ie d that t o get pai d, he sub m i tted his i nv oic es to Dav

i d, bu t he re cei ve d ch ecks f rom th e Shaki rs. Pla int iff t es t ified t ha t his w o rk a t t he co nst ruc t io n sit e in clu de d b uild ing ch imneys an d a ll of t he br ick ar ou nd t he o ut side o f the hou se. David info rmed plaint iff t hat t he ho use was t o be1-07-2335

-3-

co mple t ed be fo r e C hr ist mas an d p laint iff t es t ified t ha t he wa s g o ing t o be ab le t o co mple t e h is work on ti me if the ge ne ral con tractor m ad e sure he wa s p ai d a nd mad e sure

al l of the ba ckf i l l on the si te was done bef

ore plai ntif f perf ormed his outside m

asonry work. Plain

tif f ex pla in ed that back fil ling ent ailed plac ing dirt back ar ou nd t he fo unda t ion, near ly l evel wit h t he gr ou nd, aft er t he fou ndat ion wa s built. Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat back fil

ling is im po rt ant for t he building o f scaffo lding and t he sa fet y of maso ns and ever yone e lse at t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat he started with two empl oyees on the c onstruction si te, which in creased to seven em

ploy ees i n order t o c omp lete t he wo rk by winter . P laintiff also t est ifi ed t hat his employee s built t he sc affold a nd he supe rvised them. Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat he sp ok e wit h David a bou t op en ho les and t re nches on t he construction si

te and asked Dav

id to backf

il l f rom “day one” and ev

ery day thereafter f

or t wo months . Toward t he en

d of October 2001, plai

ntif f an d hi s em ploy ees f in is hed al l ofthe groundlevel brick w or k and need ed t o u se a sca ffold t o w or k up higher on t he ho use . P laintiff was laying br i ck s a nd su pe rvi se d h

i s em pl oyee s a s th

ey bu i l t the sc af f ol d. P l ai nti f f tes ti f i ed tha t he own ed or re nt ed t he s ca ffo lding and no o ne, inclu ding Da vid, t o ld him ho w t o er ec t t he s ca ffo ld. Pla int iff tes ti f i ed tha t som eti meshe woul d b e tol

d to s top wh

at he w asdoi

ng an d to s tart worki

ng on so met hing els e. Pla int iff t es t ified t ha t he o bse rve d t he gr o un d c o nd it io ns a t t he t ime t he sc affo ld was erected. Plai

ntif f obs erved that the back two legs of the scaf

fold were pla

ced on ci nder b l ocks d ue to th e op en

h ol es at th e c on str uc ti on si te. Pl ai n ti f f testi f i ed th at h e is f am i l i ar wi th Oc cu pa t io na l Sa fet y and He alt h Ad minist r at io n ( OS HA ) r eg ula t io ns a nd t ha t se t t ing up a s ca ffo ld on ci nde r bl ocks v i ola ted OSH A re gul ati ons a nd c onstruc

tion i ndu stry cus tom an

d practic e.1-07-2335

-4-

Pla int iff te st ified t hat aft er t he s ca ffo ld w as er ec t ed , t he jo b wa s s t o pp ed fo r a we ek . P laint iff t est ifi ed t hat he wo uld no t be allow ed o n t he sit e du ring t hat t ime and de cided t o a ddr ess t he scaf f old i ssue wh en he returned. On October 29, 2001, plai ntif f returned to the construct ion s ite an d to ld h is em ploy ees that he di d not li

ke the way

the scaf fold was erected becaus e the scaf fold was partial

ly on ci nder bl ocks and the scaf

fold was not complete without guardrail s. Plai ntif f testif ie d that Davi d was hav in g a m eetin g in front of the house, an

d pla in tif f m ade a “s ma rt remark” to him

by “than kin g” him fo rt he ba ck filling t ha t ha d n o t be en do ne . Pla int iff t es t ified t ha t he mad e t he sa r ca st ic comm ent becaus e he h

ad been aski ng Dav id to backf

il l the h ouse sin ce the start o f the j ob, but had been “igno re d o ver and o ver and o ver and o ver .” Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat David r esp ond ed by ca l l i n g h i m a “ wh i n er” a n d w al ke d a wa y to hi s m eeti n g. P l ai n ti f f testi f i ed th at h e i n ten de d to spe ak wi th Da vi d aga i n a bout the backf i l l i ng a f ter Dav i d’s meeti ng. Pla int iff t es t ified t ha t he wa s u nd er pr es su r e t o co mple t e h is w o rk, so he de cid ed t o climb the s caf f old to take wi

ndow meas urem en ts i n orde r to proceed wi

th h i s nex t pha se of work. Plai ntif f testif ie d that he clim

bed the sca

ff old, about 12 feet off

the ground, with j ust a tape mea su r e o n his be lt . Pla int iff t es t ified t ha t t he sc affo ld s ud de nly t ipp ed up sid e t o wn an d h e fe ll in to an open h

ole, landi ng ne xt to an ex

posed pipe i

nsi de of the hole. Plai

ntif f testif ie d that after hi s fal l, he saw that the scaffold was at an angle and n o longer suppo rted by

the cinder bl

ocks. Plai ntif f testif ie d that he was taken b

y a mb ula nce to the hospital , where he h ad back su rge ry an d s tay ed f or ap prox i mate l y threewe ek s. P l ai

nti f f tes ti f i ed tha t af ter a yea r of re habilitat ion, he wa s able t o w alk o n his ow n. P laintiff also t est ifi ed t hat he co nt inues t o ha ve1-07-2335

-5-

trem endous pa

i n a nd s uf f ers f rom p erson

al i ty c ha nge s an d na use a f rom th e narcoti c pai

n re l i ev ers he m ust take . Dr. Je rry Baue r testi f i ed th at he

i s a b oard-ce

rtif i ed ph y sician spe cial izi ng i n n eurosu rgery. Dr. Bauer treat ed pl ai

ntif f i n the em ergency roo m on Oc

to ber 31, 2001, and sh

ort ly thereafter perfor med surger y to r elieve pressu re o n plai ntiff ’s spinal cor d. Dr . Baue r t estified that p lai ntiff ’s sur ger y left him with pe rmanent meta l scre ws a nd plat es in his low er spine, and p er manent disability. D r. Bau er t est ifi ed t hat ove r t ime, plaint iff will l ikely develo p ad dit ional de gene ra t ive chan ges above a

nd be low the f

used area i

n hi s spi ne. Dr. Bauer testif

ie d that he observed that pla in tif f h ad recovered from

hi s i ni tial spi nal cord inj ury. Dr. Bauer al so test if ie d that plai

ntif f was bei ng treated with na

rcot ic s, whi

ch woul d preclude

hi m f rom workin

g. Dr. Victoria San

tucci t est ifi ed via a n evidenc e de po sitio n, o ver defend ant ’s o bject ion t hat t he su bject s o f her t est imony ha d n o t be en dis clo se d b efo r e h er ev ide nc e d ep o sit io n w as t ak en . Dr . Sa nt uc ci t es t ified t ha t she is empl oyed by Advanced Pai

n Centers, which f

ocuses o n pai

n m anagemen t. Dr. Sant ucci f

irst exam in ed pl ai ntif f f or back pai

n on March

11, 2004. Based on her exam in ation, Dr. Santucci at t r ibu t ed pla int iff’s pa in t o his fa ll fro m t he sc affo ldin g a nd co nc lud ed t ha t his in jur y is perm an en t. Sc ott Ye ag er

testi f i ed th at h e is th e ow n er an d p re si den t of Ye ag er Con str uc ti on . Sc ott testi f i ed th at Y ea ger C on str

uc ti on wa s n ot th e g en eral con tra ctor on th e c on str

uc ti on si te. Sc ott testi f i ed th at Yeager C onstruc

tion did not en

ter i nto a su bc ontract wi

th pl ai ntif f to perf orm work at t he co nst ru ct ion sit e and Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion d id no t pay plaint iff for t he wo rk t hat he pe r fo rmed . Sc o t t t es t ified t ha t in 2 00 1, his b r o t he rDa vidwa s no t an emp lo yee o ro n t he pa yro ll1-07-2335

-6-

of Ye ag er C ons

tructi on. Scott te sti

f i ed tha t Ye ag er C ons

tructi on prep are d vari

ousi nv oi ce s on Yeager Co nstruct ion l

ett erhead, which i

ndi cated it was general contr acto r, for David because David d id no t have a co mput er . S co t t t est ifi ed t hat he as sist ed t he Sha kirs in o bt aining a bank loan t o fu nd t heir ho use co nst ru ct ion by signing a fo rm saying Ye age r Co nst ru ct ion wa s t he general contracto r, but mai

ntain ed that all of the m oney went to t he Sha

kirs rather than

Yeager Co nst ruc t io n. Sc o t t t es t ified t ha t he o nly vis it ed t he co nst ruc t io n sit e t wic e, bu t Da vidke pt him appris ed of the progress on the construction si te. Scot t also testif

ie d about the ro le

of a gene ral contractor. S cott adm itted that a general contractor hasboth th

e ab i l i ty a nd r esp onsi bi l i ty to correc

t saf ety ha zards at the c onstruc

tion si te. Sc o t t t es t ified t ha t a ma so n w o uld no t do ba ck filling, wh ich is p er fo rmed wit h a ba ck ho e t ha t is no t pa rt o f a mas o n’s eq uip ment . S co t t t es t ified t hat bac kfilling is impo rt ant bec au se it is u nsa fe fo rwo rke r s t o wo rk o n u nle ve l gr o un d o rar o un d s afe t y haz ar ds su ch as o pe n t r en ch es o rho les in the grou nd . Sc ott tes ti f

i ed tha t he di d n ot thi nk tha t a b ac khoe w asbr

ough t to the constru cti on site by Yeag er Co nst ru ct ion. Sco t t t est ifi ed t hat even if ano t her subc ont ra ct or per for med t he backf il li ng, i t is still the general

contracto r’s duty to make s ure that t he b ackhoe i s used so that t her e ar e no safet y hazar ds a t t he jobs ite. Sco t t ack now ledge d t hat it is t he r esp ons ibil ity o f the gene ra l cont ra ct or t o r ou t inely i nspe ct t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. Sco t t t est ifi ed t hat if a rep re sent at ive o f a g en er al c o nt r ac t o rallo ws wo rk t o co nt inu e o n a jo bsit e w he r e s ca ffo ld is impr o pe r ly su pp orte d, t h at g en eral con tra ctor i s n eg l i gen t. Scot t also i dentif

ie d several

documen ts relev ant to t hi s case. Fi

rst, Sco tt ide

ntif ie d plai ntif f ’sex hi bi t 10, a docu

men t enti tle d “ Fi rstar Hom

e Mortgag e Bui

l der A pprov al Checkl i st,”1-07-2335

-7-

whi ch i den tif i ed Ye ager C onstruc

tion as the buil der. Sec ond , Sc ott i de nti

f i ed pl ai nti f f ’s ex hi bi t 12, asa s ch

ed ule a nd outl i ne tha t he cre ate d f or the bu i l di ng of the Shak i rs ’ res i denc e. The

sche dul e a nd outl i ne l i ste d “ Ye ag er C ons

tructi on project man

agem ent costs,” which

in cl uded that David, as superi ntenden t, wo uld rece iv

e $5,000 a mo nt h fo rpr o

jec t man ag eme nt an d jo b su pe rvisio n; a n a dd it io na l $2 , 00 0 a mo nt h fo rmo bile ph o ne co st s, t r av eling fue l, ad minist r at ive co st s, an d t emp o r ar y ho us ing ; a nd a n o t e t ha t Da vid wo uld se ll hi

s full-sized t ru ck a nd pu rc hase a mini-tr uck t o d ecr eas e fuel co st s. T he sc hedu le and out li ne also in cl uded tasks that Scot t t estif ie d were tasks done by

a general ma nager, such

as acq uiring s ubco nt ra ct or bids, pr oc ur ing co nt ra ct s for subc ont ra ct or s, s ched uling and o rg anizing subcontractors and quali

ty control on the project. Scot t agreed that t he docum ent showed that “D avi d was

acti ng as the supe ri nten den t and the re pres en tativ e of Yeag er Constructi

on.” Thi rd, Scott i

de nti f i ed threei nv oi ce s, p l ai nti f f ’s ex hi bi ts 1 3, 1 4, a

nd 15, f or wor k don e on t he Sha kirs’ re sidenc e by David. The se invo ices bea r t he Ye age r Co nst ru ct ion lo go wit h t he words “general

contracto rs.” Four th, Sco tt identifi

ed a do cument ent itled “Not es from Sco tt and Engineer,” plain tiff ’s ex h i b i t 19 , w h i ch wa s a docum en t th at h e cre ate d i

n h i s ow n h an dw ri ti n g. I n th i s d ocu men t, Sc ott ma de a num ber of des ign

suggestions

to the Shaki

rs, such as raisi

ng the roof lin

e and resi zi ng a st eel bea m, and gave advice on s t ru ct ur al and c os t co nsider at ions. Sco t t t est ifi ed t hat he pers on al l y wen t th rough al l of th ose th i n gsan d m ade th e rec om men da ti on s i n th e docu men t. Fi f th , Sc ott iden

ti f i ed pl ai n ti f f ’s ex h i b i t 29 , a s a l ette r to th e S h ak i rs ’ a rc h i tect, Pe te Holsm an, that Scot t wro te and signed on Yeager Cons truct ion l etter head. Scott ’s l

etter convey

ed1-07-2335

-8-

the Shaki rs’ desi red design ch

anges di rectly to the archi

tect, without any

in volv em ent by Davi d. Si xth , Scott iden

tif i ed docu men ts en titl ed “ Res i den tia l Cons tructi on Loa

n Proc edure s,” pla in tif f’ s exh ibits 7, 8, 9, and 11. Scott testifi ed that he si

gned these docum

ents to secure a co nst ru ct ion lo an fo r t he Sha kirs’ re sidenc e. Sco t t ack now ledge d t hat he signe d t he bank docum en ts o n Oc tob er 5, 2 00 1, a

pp rox i mate l y th re e w eekspri or to p l ai

n ti f f ’s i n j ur y , a n d w rote “contractor ” nex

t t o his nam e. Scot t t estif

ie d that although he

signed the docum

ent as the gene

ral co nt ra ct or for t he bank , he was not t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or . S co t t also t est ifi ed t hat when he signed the docum

ent, he wan

ted the bank to rely

on hi s representation that he was the general contractor and the b an

k though t that he wasthe c ontractor. Se ve nt h, Sc o t t ide nt ified a d o cu men t en t it led “Ce r t ifica t e o f I nsu r an ce , ” p laint iff’s ex hibit 16. In thi s docu men t, Ye ag er C ons

tructi on i s n am ed asthe i ns ure d on the Shak i r con stru cti on proj ect. Fi nal ly , Scot t identifi

ed a documen

t entitled “

AIA-101,” pl

ai ntif f’ s exh ibits 21 through 26, whi ch i s a standard f

orm agreem

ent between an

owner and contractor , iss ued by the Am erica n Inst itu t e o f Archit ect s. S co t t t est ifi ed t hat he cr eat ed t he AIA- 101 co nt ra ct use d in t his case by copy i ng a n A IA f orm th at he purch ase d at a b ookstore an

d add i ng h i s com pan y ’si nf orma tion . The contract, which

Scot t sign

ed, iden tif ie d Yeager Construction as the contractor and David as the “[c]ontracto r’s represen tative.” The contract als o stat es that “AIA Documen

t 201, General Condi tions of the C ontract for Construction,” i s adopted by ref erence. Scott testifi

ed that he was not f am i l i ar wi th A IA-2 01 ref

l ecti ng i ndu stry stan dards deal i ng w i th saf ety . The AIA- 101 co nt ra ct bet wee n defend ant and t he Sha kirs includ ed s ever al pr ovisio ns1-07-2335

-9-

related to contr ol over the work and saf ety at the construction si

re. Articl e 3 of the contract provi ded, inter al

ia , th at the “ Con

tractor sh al l be res pon si bl e to d eterm

i ne the proc ed ure s of constructi on, an

d to provi de s af e an d ade quate s caf

f old i ng, l adde rs, sta ges , hoi sts, tem

porary sup po rt s and ot her facilities o r met hod s as he may det er mine are r equ ired for safet y and fo r t he ex ec ut io n a nd co mple t io n o f t he Wo rk. ” A r t icle 3 a lso pr o vid ed t ha t t he “Co nt r ac t o rsha ll su pe rvi se an d di rect the W ork, us i

ng the Con tractor[’ s] be st ski

l l an d a tten ti on. Th e C ontr

ac tor shal l b e solel y responsi ble for and have contro l over construc tion means, methods, t echni ques, sequence s and procedures an d for coordinatin

g all portions of

the Work under the Contract.” Art icle 10 p ro vided t hat t he “Co nt ra ct or shall be re spo nsible for initiat ing, maint aining and sup er vising all safet y pre cau t ions a nd pr og ra ms in conne ct ion wit h t he pe rfo rmance of t he Co nt ra ct .” Art icle 10 a lso s t at ed t hat t he “Co nt ra ct or shall designa t e a r esp ons ible member o f the Con tractor’ s orga

ni za ti on a t the si te w hos e d uty sh al l be the pre ve nti on of ac ci de nts . Th i s p ers on shall be t he Co nt ra ct or ’s su per intend ent unless o t her wise d esigna t ed by t he Co nt ra ct or in writ ing to the Owner an

d Archi tect. ” Davi d Yeager testif

ie d that Scot t introduced hi m to the Shaki

rs, who needed to have a house buil

t. David test if

ied that Rubin

a Shakir was the general contract or for the Shakirs’ house co nst ru ct ion p roject . D avid t est ifi ed t hat he wa s hired by the S hakir s t hro ugh a n or al agr eement t o ac t as a c o nsu lt an t fo rt he ir h o us e c o nst ruc t io n p r o jec t . Da vidt es t ified t ha t t he Sh ak irs pa id hi m a m onthl y sal ary pl us expe ns es, s uch as a hotel room, gas an

d m i l eage , and phone b i l l s. In re t ur n, D avid as sist ed t he Sha kirs in hiring p lumbers, heat ing, ve nt ilating and air co ndit ioning (HVAC) cont racto rs, ro ofers, carpent ers, foundat ion contract ors and excavato rs. David al so1-07-2335

-10-

fi ll ed in the blan ks on applications for buil din g permi ts for t he Shaki

rs. David t est ifi

ed t hat Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion d id no t co nt ro l the w or k ac t ivities at t he constructi on si

te. Dav i d testif i ed th at he

reported to the

Sha ki rs an d was pai d by the Sh aki rs. Davi d adm itted that at t he tim

e of the trial

he was a n em ploy ee of Yeager Construct ion, b ut testifi ed that he nev

er to ld pl ai ntif f that he worked f

or Yeager Construct ion. Dav id testi fi ed that plai ntif f met wi th h i m and the Sha ki rs an d the Sha ki rs m ade th e f i na l deci sion to hi re pl ai ntif f . Da vidt es t ified t ha t he did no t er ec t o rsu pe rvise t he er ec t io n o f pla int iff’s sc affo ld. Da vid t es t ified t ha t pla int iff ne ve ras ke d h im t o ba ck fill, b ec au se “[ i]t wa s a lre ad y bac kfille d. ” D av id als o de nie d c alling pla int iff a “ wh ine r . ” D av id t es t ified t ha t he wa s no t pr es en t wh en pla int iff fell o ff t he sc affo ld, be ca us e h e w as ha ving a me et ing insid e t he ho us e w it h t he Sh ak irs . Da vid testifi ed that he i s not tr ai

ned i n erectin g scaf foldin g or safety, an

d is not fam il ia r with OSHA regul ati ons. David a lso t est ifi

ed t hat he o ver saw t he su bco nt ra ct or s and t heir w or k whe n he wa s at t he construction si

te. David us ed a truck with the n am e “Yeage r Construction” on i

t. David testif

ie d that Scot t paid f

or his c ellul

ar phone bi

ll and Dav id us ed Scott ’s credi

t card t o pay f

or expenses befo re being r eimburse d by t he Sha kirs. David p rint ed invo ices t o t he Sha kirs fo r his se rvices and expe nses o n Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion let t er head . D avid also t est ifi ed t hat he t old sup pliers t hat he was fro m Yeag er Co nst ru ct ion and expe ct ed t hem to re ly on t hat so t hat t he su pplier s wo uld g ive the Shaki rs a l ower price. Sam Sh aki r testifi ed that he owned f

our gas stat ions

in Indiana that were bui

lt by Yeager Construction. Sam testi fi ed that Scot t Yeager and his brothers ran Yeager Cons truct ion, wh

ic h1-07-2335

-11-

was al so the general

contracto r that he used to buil d hi s house i

n Northbrook, Ill

in ois. Sam testifi ed that during the pl

ann in g stages, Scot t and Davi

d vi si ted his house several ti

me s. Sam t es t ified t ha t Sc o t t t o ld h im t ha t Da vidwo rke d fo rYe ag er Co nst ruc t io n a nd Da vidwo uld supe rvise the con structi

on proj ect. Sam testi fi

ed that Scot t arranged for the construction project to be insured through an agency in Indiana, whe

re Scot t li ved an d Yeager Construction was l ocated. S cott al so to ld Sam tha t he woul d obtai

n th e n ec es sa ry bu i l di ng pe rm i ts f or th e c ons

tructi on proj ec t an

d D av i d took ca r e o f t he wh o le p r o ce ss be ca us e t he Sh ak irs “d idn ’t ha ve a c lue . ” S am t es t ified t ha t Da vid ad vi se d R ub i na to l i st h er n am e on Vi l l ag e of North br ook doc um en ts a s th e g en era l con tractor beca use Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion d id no t have a n Illinois license. Sam t est ifi ed t hat Rubina ha s no experience run

ni ng construction si

tes, inc ludi

ng no ex perien ce wi th mas onry, pl

umbin g, exca vat ion o r c onc re t e. Sam t est ifi ed t hat Rubina w as no t t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or on t he co nst ruc t io n sit e a nd o nly sig ne d t he Villa ge o f No r t hbr o o k d o cu men t s be ca us e S co t t an d D av id to ld h er to do so. S am

expl ai ned that Rubi

na an d he si gned docum

ents as di rected by Yeager Co nst ru ct ion bec aus e t her e wa s “a big friend ship bet wee n us a nd Ye age r Co nst ru ct ion. We trust ed them .” Sam testi f i ed th at Yeager C onstruc

tion wasthe g eneral

contrac tor at the con structi

on si te. Sam testi fi

ed that the bank rel

eased the l

oan m oney directl y to Yeager Construction, whi ch used the m oney to pay f or doors, l

um ber, and other expe

ns es then gave rem ai ni ng f unds to the Sh

aki rs. David p icked up c heck s fro m the ba nk, t hen o ver night ed t hem to Sco t t . D avid pa id so me of t he subcontractors t hrough Scott , and the Shaki rs pai d some of

them w ith ch ecks f rom thei r personal1-07-2335

-12-

checkb ook. The Sh

aki rs pa i d whatev er Da

vi d told them to pay , usi

ng m oney f rom th e b an k loan. Sam testi fi

ed that he trusted t hat Scott would keep track of al l of the mone y a nd be li eved that Scot t kept so me

of the m oney from the loan for his servi

ces as a gen

eral c ontract or, because that waspart of

thei r agre em en t. Sam testi fi

ed that plai

ntif f or pl ai ntif f’ s construction compan

y, Gri ll o Construct ion, was hi red b y Yeag er Constructi

on, as were al l of the other s

ubc ontractors a

t the con structi

on si te. Sam testi fi

ed that Scot t vis ited the construction si te every month, wh

ic h am ounted to at least 12 t imes dur ing t he lengt h of t he co nst ru ct ion p roject . S am st at ed t hat he wo rk ed a t his gas s t at ions i n In di an a M on da y th rough Fr i da y an d w as at th e s i te on l y on we eken ds . Sa m also c al l ed Sc ott we ekl y f or up da tesan d Sc ott woul

d obtai n i nf orm ati on f rom Da vi d, w ho wasat the c ons

tructi on si te Monday through Friday. Sam testif ie d that Davi d was hi

red to supervise and routin el y i nspect t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. Sam t est ifi ed t hat aft er plaint iff

’s fall, Da vid re nt ed a bulldo zer and pe r so na lly us ed it t o ba ck fill and lev el h o les o n t he co nst ruc t io n sit e. Da vidleft t he pr o jec t sho r t ly af ter plai ntif f ’si nj ury occurre d. The

constructi on si

te was closed f or a wee k, then M ark Ye ager, another of the Yeager brothers, was sen t t o fi ni sh the proj ect. Mark Yeager did f in is h the project f or Yeag er Constructi

on. W ay ne Ha ns on te sti f i ed tha t he wa s th e di rector of de ve l opm

en t f or th e V i l l ag e of No rt hbro ok . H anso n t est ifi ed t hat No rt hbro ok has a pr og ra m wher eby a ho meow ner co uld se rve as a gen eral contrac tor. Hans on testi

f i ed th at Northb

rook created

a f orm f or resi den ts who are go ing t o bu ild t he ir o wn ho mes t ha t se rve d t o ale r t su ch r es ide nt s “if t he y pr o ce ed ed an d d id somethi ng i ll egally that t hey would ha ve to remove i

t and correct the vi

olation.” Han

son testif ie d1-07-2335

-13-

t ha t No r t hbr o o k’ s inv o lve men t wit h c o nst ruc t io n p r o jec t s r ela t es t o mak ing su r e r es ide nt s c o mply wit h N o r t hbr o o k’ s bu ilding co de s a nd t he pu r po se o f ha ving o wn er s a ndge ne r al c o nt r ac t o r s in No r t hbr o o k’ s p r o gr am is t o pr o vid e n o t ice t ha t if t he y do so met hing wr o ng , No r t hbr o o k w ill t ell them the y h ave to tear it down. Hanson testif ie d that Nor thbrook’s safe ty provi si ons are lim

ited to “saf ety of the f

olks i n the n ei ghborhood, the adjacen

t pro perty owners” an

d Nort hbrook does not get i nv olv ed i n c omp l i ance wi

th OSH A or i ndu stry stan dards on the constructi on si

te. Hanson testi fi

ed that Rubi

na si gned an agreem ent wi th the Vil la ge of Northbrook in wh

ic h Ru bina r eq ue st ed t o be he ro wn co nt r ac t o ran d a ck no wle dg ed t ha t she wa s “u lt imat ely re spo nsible as t he pe rmit ho lder for t he pe rfo rmance of a ll subco nt ra ct or s o n t he job s ite a nd compl ia nce wi th the pla ns an d specifi cations on *** f

il e wi th the [V]il

la ge.” Hanson testif

ie d that the Vi ll age consi dered Rubi

na to be her own gen

eral c ontract or. Hanson testifi ed that nei

ther Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion no r D avid Ye age r is ident ifi ed a s t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or on t he building per mits fo r t he Sha kirs’ hou se. Hans on t est ifi ed t hat Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion is liste d as t he ce ment contracto r on one of the perm it appl ic ations f or t he Sha

kirs’ house. Hanson a

ls o recall ed that Sam told h

im durin g preconstruction that Sam would b e usi ng a contractor from

Indiana, na

me d Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion. Denn is Puchalski

testifi ed, as pl ai ntif f’ s construction saf

ety ex pert, t hat he rev

ie wed photo s of the Sha

kirs h ouse construction si

te whi ch were taken b

y the archi tect, as wel

l as num erous depositions

and docum

ents i n thi s case. Pucha

ls ki testi fi ed that the use of ci

nder bl ocks to support a scaff

old i s prohibited by

the saf ety standards of

OSHA, the Am

erica n Nati onal St anda rd s Ins t itu t e ( ANSI ), t he Asso ciat ed G ener al Co nt ra ct or s o f America S oc iety and t he1-07-2335

-14-

National Associ ation of Hom

ebui lde rs. Puchal ski ’s opin

ion was that the cin

der bl ocks moved, ca us i ng the sc af f ol d to ti p a nd pl ai nti f f to f al l f rom the sc af f ol d. P uc ha

l sk i ’s opi ni on wasbase d on pla int iff’s t es t imo ny, co mbine d w it h r ev iew ing t he ph o t o gr ap hs a nd t he gr o un d c o nd it io ns in t his ca se . Pu ch als ki t es t ified t ha t he did no t t hink t ha t t he sc affo ld s lipp ed o ff t he co nc r et e w ind o w s ill beca use , if tha t had o ccu rr ed, t he sc affold w ou ld have g one ent irely do wn. Pet er Ho lsman te st ifi

ed t hat he wa s t he Sha kirs’ pr ojec t ar chite ct , w ho w as hire d by t he Sh ak irs t o cr ea t e t he de sig n p lan s fo rt he ir n ew ho us e. Ho lsma n t es t ified t ha t , t o t he be st o f his knowle dge, Davi

d was workin

g as a “f reela nce” as si stant to Sam a

nd was n ot working f

or Yeager Co nst ru ct ion. Mi ch ae l Moo n ey testi f i ed th at h e is a v oca ti on al re h ab i l i tati on cou n se l or w h o wor kswi th in div idua ls who have suf

fered an in jury. Mooney testif

ie d that he becom

es f am il ia r with an i n di v i du al ’s med i ca l si tua ti on , w ork

h i sto ry, e du ca

ti on al b ackg rou n d a n d trai n i n g a n d a ttem pts to look at t ransf

errable skill

s that the in

div idua l c an use i n a n ew occupation. Mooney testi fi ed that he wa s re t ained by de fense c ou nsel t o o ffer o pinions c onc er ning vo cat ional r ehabilitat ion o pt ions fo rpla int iff t ha t ar e le ss st r en uo us t ha n ma so nr y. M o o ne y t es t ified t ha t pla int iff mo st like ly co uld no longe r be a bri ckl ay er. Moo ney

testifi ed that he revi

ewed pl ai ntif f’ s records, but never m

et plaint iff . Mo one y tes t ifi

ed t hat he wa s aw ar e t hat plaint iff had r un a mas onr y compa ny since t he 198 0s . Moon

ey tes ti f i ed tha t he wa s p rovi de d w i

th d ocu men ts re l ati ng to the sta te re gi stra ti on of plai ntif f ’scom pan y ’sna me. At the cl ose of evi

dence, the ci

rcuit court denied def

endan t’s request to subm

it a speci al inter ro gat or y to t he jur y addr essing t he qu est ion o f whet her plaint iff was an indep ende nt1-07-2335

-15-

contr acto r. The jury returned a verdict in f avor o f pl ain tiff and assessed dam

ages agains

t de f en da n t i n th e a moun t of $2 ,86 6,4 00 . Th

e j ur y also f oun d p l ai n ti f f ’s con tri b utor y n eg l i gen ce

to be 36 %, t her eby red ucing p laintiff’s damag es t o $ 1, 834 ,4 96. The circu it co ur t ent er ed jud gment on th e j ur y ’s v erdi ct a n d den i ed de f en da n t’s posttri al moti on se ek i n g j udgm en t n.o.v. and a n

ew trial. Defen

dant now app eals. II. Analy sis A . J udgm en t n.o.v. Defend ant first co nt ends t hat t he circ uit co ur t er re d in denying it s mot ion fo r jud gment n.o.v. where pl

ai ntif f f ai le d to prove a prima facia cas e of ne gli gen ce. A moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. sho uld o nly be grant ed in t hos e limi t ed c ase s whe re all of t he ev id en ce an d t he infe r en ce s t he r ef r o m, vie we d i n t he lig ht mo st fa vo r ab le t o t he no nmo vin g p ar t y, so overwhel

mi ngl y f avors the m

ovant that no contr ary v

erdict bas ed on that evi dence could ever stan d. Tho rnt on v. Gar cini , 3 82 I ll. App. 3d 8 13, 817 (2 008 ). When ru ling upo n suc h a mot ion, the cou rt doe s n ot we i gh the ev i de nc e or m

ake d eterm

i na ti ons of cre di bi l i ty an d m us t not su bs ti tute i ts j udg men t f or th at of the j ury mere l y be ca us e there are othe r i nf ere nc esor conc l usi ons th at the j ury could ha ve drawn or bec aus e the

re are other re sul

ts that the court be l i ev es a re m ore reas onab l e. Thorn

ton , 38 2 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 8 17 . “ ‘Th e c our

t h as n o ri gh t to en t er a ju dg men t [ no t wit hst an din g t he ve r dic t ] if t he r e is an y evid en ce , t o ge t he rwit h r ea so na ble inferenc es t o be dr awn t her efro m, de monst ra t ing a su bst ant ial factu al dispu t e, or wher e t he as se ss men t o f cr ed ibilit y o f t he wit ne ss es o rt he de t er minat io n r eg ar din g c o nflic t ing ev ide nc e is deci si ve to the out come.’ ” Thorn ton , 382 Ill . App. 3d at 817, quo ting Ma ple v . Gu sta f

son, 1511-07-2335

-16-

Il l . 2d 44 5, 4 54 (1 99 2) . A

trial cou rt’ s r ul i n g on a m oti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. is subj ect to a de
novo stan dard of revi ew. Thorn

ton , 382 Ill . App. 3d at 817. In order to recover o n a negl igen ce clai m, plain tiff must set o ut suffi

cien t facts t o est abl

ish that t he def

endan t o wed a duty to plai

ntif f, that defe

ndan t breached that duty, and that the brea ch proxi matel y caus ed i nj ury to pla i ntif f . Bu erk ett v . Il l i noi s P ower Co. , 384 Ill . App. 3d 418, 422 (2008 ). Def

endan t fi rst argu es that plai

ntif f f ail ed to establ i sh

that i t owed pl ai ntif f a duty of c are pu rsua n t to s ec ti on

41 4 of th e R estate men t (S ec on d) of

Tort s ( Re sta

tem en t (S ec on d) of

Tort s §41 4, 196 5) ), beca use t her e wa s no evidenc e t hat David w as d efenda nt ’s emplo yee o r a gent and no e vidence t hat defend ant was t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or at t he ho use co nst ru ct ion p roject . We di sag ree. An age ncy is a fiduciar y relat ionship in which t he pr incipal has t he r ight t o c ont ro l the agen t's c onduc t and the a gen t has the p ower to act on the pri nc i pal 's beha l f . Amcor e Ba nk, N. A. v. Hahn am an-Al brecht, Inc. , 326 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 12 6, 134 ( 2001) . An age nt ’s au t hor ity may be ei ther a ctual or appar en t, and actual authority may be ei ther expr ess or im pli ed. Am

core Bank, N. A. , 326 I ll . App. 3d at 134. I n order t o pr ove the existence of apparent aut hority, plai ntif f m ust de m ons trate tha t: (1 ) th e p ri

nc i pal consente d to or k

now i ngl y ac qui es ce d i n th e age nt' s exe

rci se of aut hor ity; (2 ) t he t hird p er so n re aso nably conc luded , ba sed on t he ac t ions o f the pr incipal and age nt , t hat t he pa rt y was an a gent of t he pr incipal; and ( 3) t he t hird p er so n just ifi ably relied o n t he agen t's a ppare nt au thori ty to h i s detrim en t. Career Concepts, Inc. v. Sy nergy, Inc. , 372 Ill . App. 3d 395 , 404 (2 007).1-07-2335

-17-

Here, wef

i nd tha t the ev i de nc e supp orts a

f i nd i ng tha t Da vi d w asei the r an em pl oyeeor agent of def

endan t. While Scot t and Davi

d testifi ed that David was not an em ploy ee of Yeager Co nst ru ct ion at t he t ime of t he ho use co nst ru ct ion p roject , p laintiff pres ent ed e vidence t o t he co nt r ar y. P laint iff t es t ified t ha t he wa s hir ed by D av id t o pe r fo rm mas o nr y wo rk a nd Da vid ind ica t ed t ha t Ye ag er Co nst ruc t io n w o uld gu ar an t ee his p ayme nt . Sa m t es t ified t ha t Sc o t t t o ld him that David w or ked for Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion. Sco t t t est ifi ed t hat he pr epa re d a s ched ule and out li ne f or t he construction proje ct, plai ntif f’ s exh ibit 12, that li sted “Yeager Construction proje ct man ag eme nt co st s” an d s t at ed t ha t Da vidwo uld be t he su pe r int en de nt an d r ec eiv e a mo nt hly sa lar y fo rpr o

jec t man ag eme nt an d jo b su pe rvisio n. Sc o t t als o ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t mo nt hly i nv oic es f or Dav i d’s work wer

e prep ared on

Yeag er Constructi

on letterhe ad. Defe ndan t, nonetheles s, argues that there was no evi dence that Yeager Construction was t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or and ha d t he r ight t o c ont ro l David’s a ct ivities at t he jobs ite. Defend ant not es t hat David t est ifi

ed t hat he wa s hired and p aid by the Shak irs t o be a co nsult ant and t he Shaki rs contro ll

ed hi s work activi

ties. However, plai

ntif f i ntroduced evide

nce that Scott created an outli ne of al l of Davi d’s responsi

bi li ties at the j obsi

te, plai ntif f’ s exh ibit 12, whi

ch i ncl uded t ask s su ch as acq uiring s ubco nt ra ct or bids, pr oc ur ing co nt ra ct s for subc ont ra ct or s, s ched uling and or ganizing s ubco nt ra ct or s and qua lity co nt ro l on t he pr ojec t . S co t t agr eed t hat t he do cument showed that “Dav

id was actin

g as the superi

ntenden t and the representativ

e of Yeager Construction.” Scott al so iden tif ie d the AIA-101 contract which Scott signed, i dentif yi ng Yeager Construction as the contractor and Dav id as the “[c]ontractor ’s represen tative.” In addi ti on, Sam tes ti f i ed tha t Scott tol

d h i m tha t Da vi d w orke d f

or Ye ag er C ons

tructi on1-07-2335

-18-

and Dav id woul d supervise the construction project. Sam testifi ed that Yeager Construction was t he ge ne r al c o nt r ac t o rat t he co nst ruc t io n sit e a nd t ha t t he ba nkr ele as ed t he lo an mo ne y dir ec t ly to Yeager Construction. Sam testifi ed that he worked at his gas stations i n Indi ana Monday through Frida

y a nd was onl

y pres ent at the construct ion s ite on weeken ds. Sam testi fi

ed that Scot t vis ited the construction si te every month an d Sam c alle d Scot t weekly for updates that Scot t would obtain f

rom Davi d, who was at the construct ion s ite Monday through Frida

y. Sam al so testif i ed th at Dav

i d was hi red to sup ervi se a

nd r outin el y i ns pect the con structi

on si te. W hi l e w e n ote that H anson

tes ti f i ed tha t Ru bi na si gned an ag ree men t wi th th e V i l l ag e of Nort hbrook in

whi ch Rub in a requested to be h

er own contracto r, Hanson ex pla in ed that No rt hbro ok ’s pr ovisio ns we re lim ited t o “s afet y of t he fo lks in the neighbo rho od , t he ad jacent property owne rs” a nd Northbr

ook does n

ot get in vol ve d i n c omp l i ance wi

th OSH A or i ndu stry st anda rd s o n t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. Sam also t est ifi ed t hat Rubina ha d no expe rience ru nning construction si

tes, inc ludi

ng no ex perien ce wi th mas onry, pl

umbin g, excavation or concrete. Sam explained t hat Rubina w as no t t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or on t he co nst ru ct ion sit e and only signed t he Vil l age of Northb rook docum

en ts be caus e Scott and Dav i d told her to do so. Accordin gly , plai ntif f i ntroduced suff

ic ie nt evi dence to dispute def

endan t’s cl ai ms that Da vi d w asnot a

n e m pl oyeeor ag en

t an d that Y eage r Con

stru cti on wasnot th

e g en era l con tractor at the c ons

tructi on s i te. The j ury coul d have a ss es se d the c red i bi l i ty of the wi tne ss esi n f av or of pl ai nti f f by de term i ni ng tha t Ye ag er C ons

tructi on wasthe

ge ne ral con tractor, w hi ch em pl oyed or gr ant ed a ut hor ity t o D avid. Since p laintiff demons t ra t ed a subs t ant ial factu al dispu t e, involving the assess me nt of credi

bi li ty of the wi

tnesses an

d the determi

nation regardi

ng conf li cting e vi dence1-07-2335

-19-

i s dec i si v e to th e ou tcom e, a g ra n t of j udgm en t n.o.v. wasnot appropri ate on th i s b asis. Thorn ton , 382 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 817. De fend ant nex t co nt end s t hat de fend ant did no t o we pla int iff a d ut y of c ar e w her e p laint iff f ail ed to prove

the existen

ce of a con tract f or masonr y work b etween pl

ai ntif f and def endan t. Defe ndan t mai ntain s that the evidence sh

ows that plai

ntif f was hi red by the Shaki rs, rather than Yeager Construction. Contrary to defenda nt’s ass ertion, pla

in tif f testif ie d that Davi d contacted him about t he co nst ru ct ion p roject , int er viewed him, rea ched an o ra l agr eement t o hir e him, and in dic ated that paym

ent would b e guaranteed by Yeager Construction. Sam al so test if

ie d that Yea ger Co nst ru ct ion wa s t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or at t he co nst ru ct ion sit e and hired t he subcontractors, incl

udin g pla in tif f. In addi tion, Scott testifi

ed that he created an outli ne of tasks for David, whi

ch i ncl uded “acquiri

ng subcontract or bids, pro curing contract s for subcontra cto rs, schedul in g and organi

zi ng sub contracto rs and qual ity contro l on the proj ect.” Scot t agreed that the doc um en t sh owe d that D av

i d “ wa s acti ng asthe su pe ri nte nd en t an d the re pre senta ti ve of Yeager Const ruct ion.” Co nsiderin g t he cont radict or y evi

dence pr esented by pl

aintif f, defendant’s
m oti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. was pro perly

deni ed on t hi s basi s. Defend ant next co nt ends t hat it o wed no d ut y to plaint iff unde r se ct ion 4 14 o f the Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Torts, where plai ntif f, h im self, was a

n i ndepen dent contracto r rather than the e m ploye e of an i nde pen den t contractor. Sec t ion 4 14 o f the Rest at ement pr ovid es a n exce pt ion t o t he ge ner al ru le tha t one who employs a n indepe ndent co nt ra ct or is not liable for t he ac t s o r o missions o f the indepe ndent contractor. Downs v. Steel & Craf t Buil ders, Inc. , 358 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 20 1, 205 ( 2005) . S ection 4141-07-2335

-20-

of the Restat emen

t (S econd) o f Tort s provides: "O ne wh o en trusts w ork to a

n i nd ep en de nt c ontr

ac tor, b ut wh o reta i ns the con trol o f an y pa r t o f t he wo rk, is s ub jec t t o liabilit y fo rph ysic al h ar m to others for whose sa fet y t he emp lo yer o we s a du t y t o ex er cis e r ea so na ble ca r e, wh ich is c au se d b y his f ail ure to ex ercise h

i s con trol wi th rea sona

bl e ca re." (Em phasi s Added

). Restatem en t (Second) of

Torts §414 ( 1965) . In Connagh

an v . Capli

ce , 325 Ill . App. 3d 245, 249 (2001), t hi s court r ecogni zed that section 414 add re sses t he du t y that an emplo yer o wes “to ot her s,” for example, employee s o f the indepe ndent co nt ra ct or and o t her t hird p ar t ies. T his co ur t held t hat “[n] ot hing in this se ct ion o f the Restatemen

t im poses a duty upon em

ploy ers that in ures to an in

dependen t contr actor. ” Connagh an , 3 25 I ll. App. 3d a t 249 . I n Connagh an , this court found that becaus e there was nothi ng i n the rec ord to estab l i sh

that the plai ntif f wasan y thi ng b ut an i nde pen den t contractor, section 414 of the R estatem en t was n ot appl i cab l e. Connagh

an , 325 Ill . App. 3d at 249. However, unl

ike Connagh

an , in the present case there is evi dence in the reco rd t o suggest t hat plaint iff

wo rk ed fo r his o wn co mpany, w hich had be en hired by defenda nt as a n indepe ndent contracto r. The record shows that defendan t alleged i n i ts third-party com

pla in t and am ended t hir d- pa r t y co mpla int t ha t “At all r ele va nt t imes , [ pla int iff] wa s w o rkin g fo rAnt ho ny G r illo Cons tructi on, In

c.,” a nd th at “th e Shaki rs h i red A nthony Gril l o Constructi on, In

c. as a m ason ry subc ont ra ct or .” Defend ant sho uld no t be pe rmitt ed t o no w ar gue on a ppe al tha t plaint iff was no more than an

in dependen t contr actor him

self. See Cz arob sk

i v . L ata , 227 Il

l . 2d 364 , 376 (2 008), ci ting In r e St ephe n K. , 37 3 Il l . A pp. 3d 7 , 25 (20 07)(“

A pa rty i s e stoppe d f

rom taki ng a p osi ti on1-07-2335

-21-

on ap peal that i s i nc onsi sten t wi th a p osi tion the p arty took in the tri al court”). In addi ti on, Sam tes ti f i ed tha t Ye ag er C ons

tructi on h i red pl ai nti f f or Gr i l l o Constru

cti on t o pe rfo rm t he ma so nr y wo rk at t he c o nst ru ct io n sit e. Th e r ec o rd also sho ws t hat pla int iff subm itted in voic es under the n

am e of “A nthony ’s Mas onary.” Pl

ai ntif f testif ie d that he started wi th two e m pl oy ee s on th e c on str

uc ti on si te, wh i ch i n crea se d to s ev

en em pl oy ee s i n ord er to co mplet e t he wo rk by winter . P laintiff also t est ifi ed t hat his employee s built t he sc affold a nd he supervised them . Further, Moo ney testifi ed that he was aware that plai ntif f h ad operated a maso nry co mpany since t he 19 80s and r ece ived do cument s re late d t o t he st at e r egist ra t ion o f the compan y own ed by pla in tif f. Bas ed on the evi

dence i n the record, we conclude that t here was evi den ce to i ndi cate that plai

ntif f ’scom pan y washi red b y def endan t to perform

the m ason ry work at the c onstruc

tion si te. Defe ndan t argues that even i f pl

ai ntif f es tabli shed that he was a person who coul d be owed a d uty un der s ec ti on

41 4, p l ai n ti f f f ai l ed to es tab l i sh th at def en da n t ex ercise d suf

f i ci en t con trol to owe a du ty u nde r section 414 of the R estatem en t. Sec ti on 4 14 c om

monl y ari se s w he n a ge ne ral con tractor en trusts w ork to a

su bc ontr ac tor but superi ntends the j ob hi

ms el f or through a forem

an. Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Torts §414, Com men t b , at 38 7- 88 . Un de rt he se cir cu mst an ce s, t he ge ne r al c o nt r ac t o ris s ub jec t t o liabilit y if he kno ws o r r eas ona bly should k now t hat t he su bco nt ra ct or wo rk is being pe rfo rmed in a dang er ou s manner and fails t o e xer cise his po wer of c ont ro l to st op t he wo rk . R est at ement (Se con d) of Tort s § 41 4, C om

men t b , at 387-88. In order for this rul e to apply , the general contractor:1-07-2335

-22- “[ M] us t ha ve r et ain ed at lea st so me d eg r ee o f co nt r o l o ve rt he man ne rin wh i ch th e work i s d on e. It i s n

ot en oug h th at h e h as merel y a g en eral ri gh t to ord er th e w ork sto pp ed or re su med , to i n sp ec t i ts progre ss

or to rec ei

v e rep orts , to make sugg es ti ons

or re com men da ti ons wh i ch ne ed not n ec es sa ril y be f ol l owe d, or to pres cri b e a l terati on s a n d dev i ati on s. Su ch

a g en eral ri gh t i s u sual l y re se rved to [general contracto rs], but it does not mean that the [sub]contractor is controll ed as to hi s m eth odsof work , or a s to op era

ti ve de tai l . There m us t be such a re ten ti on of a ri ght of supe rvision tha

t the [sub] contrac

tor is not en tire l y f ree to do the work i n h i s own way ." Re statem

en t (Second) of

Torts §414, C omm

en t c, at 388 (1 965). “ ‘T he ce nt r al is su e is r et ain ed co nt r o l o f t he ind ep en de nt co nt r ac t o r ’s wo rk, wh et he rco nt r ac t ua l, supervisory, operational [] or so me mi x thereof.’ ” Wi

lke rson v. Schwen

dener , 379 Ill . App. 3d 491, 494 (2008), quo ting Martens v. MC L Construction Corp. , 347 Il l . Ap p. 3d 30 3, 318 ( 2004) . Gene ral l y , wh ether a ge ne ral con tractor re tai

ne d suf f i ci en t con trol to trigge r l i ab i l i ty un de r s ec ti on 414 is a q ues tion of f act. W i l ke rs on , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 494. Only when the evi dence prese

nted i s i ns uf f i cien t to create a f

actual question can the issue b e dec i ded a s a m atter of l aw. W i l ke rs on , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 494. In thi s case, there was s

uff ic ie nt evi dence of retained c ontro l f

or t he j ury to decide whet her defend ant was liable under sec t ion 4 14. Defend ant ent er ed int o a co nt ra ct wit h t he Sha ki rs wh i ch l ef t def endan t to control the opera

tiv e detai l s an d saf ety at the c onstruc

tion si te. The contr act specifi

ed that defendan

t was “solely

responsibl

e” for the “constr uction means,
methods , tech

ni ques , seq uen ces and proced

ures and f or coordi na tin g al l portions of

the W ork1-07-2335

-23-

un der the C on

tra ct. ” T h e c on

tra ct a l so s pe ci f i ed th at def en da n t wa s res ponsi b l e f or “ al l saf ety pre ca utions an d pr ogra m s” an d that d ef en da nt’ s s upe ri nte nd en t woul d b e the m

em be r of defen dant’s organi

zation “ whose duty s

hal l b e the preven

tion of acci

dents.” The re was also evidenc e t hat defend ant ’s ac t ions o n t he jobs ite ind icat ed t hat defend ant re t ained mo re t han a g ener al right of su per vision. Sco t t t est ifi ed t hat he pr epa re d a s ched ule and ou t line of t ask s for David, as t he su per intend ent at t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. The sche dule a nd o ut line provided that Davi

d would sch

edul e and organi

ze subcontractors and perform “qual ity contro l.” The t est imony at t rial est ablished t hat David w as a t t he co nst ru ct ion sit e o n a da ily basis and act ively super vised t he su bco nt ra ct or s and inspec t ed t he jobs ite. Plaint iff also t est ifi

ed t hat he wo ul d b e t o ld

t o st o p w ha t he wa s d o ing an d t o st ar t so met hin g e lse . P lain t iff’ s t es t imo ny, there f ore, i ndi cated th at he wasnot en

tire l y f ree to do the work i

n h i s own man ner. In addi ti on , Sc ott te sti

f i ed th at i t wa s th e res ponsi b i l i ty of th e g en eral con tra ctor to ro ut inely i

nspe ct t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. Sco t t t est ifi ed r ega rd ing t he impor t ance of ba ckfilli ng and noted that even i f an

ot her sub contracto r performed the b ackfi ll in g, it was still

the general co nt ra ct or ’s du t y to make s ur e t hat a bac kho e is use d so t hat t her e ar e no safet y hazar ds a t t he j ob si te. Sc ott ac

kn owl ed ge d th at i f a rep re se n tati v e of a g en eral con tra ctor al l owe d w ork

to continue on a j obsi

te where scaf

foldin g was i mproperl y s upport ed, that general contractor was ne gli gen t. Acc ordi

ngl y , ba sed on the evi den ce pre sen ted at tri al , i

t can not be sai d tha t no con trary verdict co uld ever st and. We, t herefor e, co nclude that the evidence supp or ts t he circuit co urt ’s den i al of de f en da n t’s moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. Even i f we we re to concl

ude that defen

dant did n ot exerci se suf

fi ci ent contro l to owe1-07-2335

-24-

pla in tif f a duty under section 414 of the Restatemen t, t he evi dence sh owed that defendan

t o wed plai ntif f a duty as p osse ssor of

the l and un der s ection 343 of the Re statem en t (Second) of

Torts. See Cli ff ord v. Wharton Business Group, L.L. C. , 353 Ill . App. 3d 34, 41 (2004) (sections 414 and 343 a re not mutua

l l y ex cl usi ve ; ra ther, e ach one of f ers a n i nde pen den t bas i s f or recov ery

). Pl ai n ti f f argu es on appe al, a n d p re se n ted a s i m i l ar argu men t b ef oreth e c i rc ui t cou rt, th at a du ty aros e w he re d ef en da nt f ai l ed to ba ckf i l l an d otherw i se f ai l ed to correc t ha

za rdou s c ond

i ti ons on the j obsi te. This court m

ay uphold on an y ba si s ap peari ng i n the rec ord. Yod er v . F erg us on , 381 Il l . Ap p. 3d 35 3, 372 ( 2008) . Illinois has a do pt ed t he r ules se t for t h in sect ions 3 43 a nd 34 3A o f the Rest at ement (Second) of Tort s regardin g the duty of posses sors of l and to their i nvi tees. Section 343 pro vides: "A possess or o f l

and i s subj ect to li

abi li ty f or phys ic al

harm caused to his

in vi tees by a co ndit ion o n t he land if, bu t only if, he

(a) kn ows or by the exerci se of

reas onab l e ca

re woul d di scover the condi tion, and sh

ould real iz e that it in

volv es an un reasonabl e ris k of ha rm t o s uch invit ees , a nd (b) s houl d ex pect that they

wil l not di scover or real

ize the dan

ger,
or will f ail to pr ot ect t hemselves a gainst it, and (c ) fails t o e xer cise r eas ona ble car e t o p ro t ect t hem aga inst t he1-07-2335

-25- dan ger." Restatem

en t (Second) of

Torts §343 ( 1965) . Il l i noi s courtsrecogn

ize a n “open and obv i ous” exc eption to the du

ty of care owed b y posse ssors o f lan d t o invit ee s, as it is no t fo r se ea ble t ha t an invit ee will be inju r ed wh en t he co nd it io n is obv i ous or kn

own. Buer

kett , 38 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 42 2. T he o pe n- an d- o bvio us ex ce pt io n is out li ned i n section 343A of the Restat emen t (S econd) o f Tort s, which pro vides: “A possessor of l and i s not li abl e to his i nvi tees for phy

si cal harm caused to t hem b y an y ac ti v i ty or c on di ti on on th e l an d w h ose da n ger i s k n own or ob v i ous to the m , un l es s th e p oss es sor

sh oul d a nti ci pa te the h arm de sp i te suc h k now l edgeor obv i ousness .” Re statem

en t (Second) of

Torts §343A

(1), at 218 (1965 ). Plaint iff ar gue s t hat even if t he une ven gr ou nd and unsa fe sca ffold we re “op en and ob v i ous ” c on di

ti on s, th e del

i b erate en cou n ter ex ce pti on appl i es to i m pos e l i ab i l i ty on de f en da n t. The del ib erate encounter exception states t hat a possessor of prem is es i s lia ble for an open an d ob v i ous h az ard “ wh en th e p oss es sor

‘h as re as on to ex pe ct th at th e i n v i tee wi l l pr oce ed to enco unt er t he kno wn o r o bviou s da nger beca use t o a re aso nable man in his po sitio n t he advan tages of doin

g so would outweigh the apparen t risk.’ ” La

Fe ve r v . K em l i te C o. , 185 Ill . 2d 380, 391 (1998), quo ting Re sta tem en t (S ec on d) of

Tort s § 34 3A , C om

men t f (1965). The focus wit h t he de liber at e e nc o un t er an alys is is o n w ha t t he po ss es so ro f lan d a nt icip at es o rsho uld an tic i pate the en

trant wi l l do. Buer

kett , 3 84 I ll. App. 3d a t 422 -2 3. “[L] iabili t y ste ms fro m the kno wledg e o f the po sses so r o f the pr emises, and w hat t he po sses so r ‘ha [d ] r eas on t o e xpec t ’ t he in vi tee would do in

the fac e of the ha

zard.” LaFev

er , 1 85 I ll. 2d a t 392 , q uo t ing Res t at ement1-07-2335

-26-

(Se con d) of Tort s § 34 3A , C om

men t f (1965). Under this e

xcepti on, in

div idua ls wil l m ake deli berate choices to encounter hazards when f aced with em

ploym ent concerns, and t hose encoun ters are reas onab l

y f oresee ab l e by

posse ssors

of property . LaFev

er , 185 Il l . 2d at 39 4-95. Here, while the holes and trenches on the const ruct ion si te wer e open and obvious, plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat he had spo ken w ith D avid abo ut t he co ndit ion at t he co nst ru ct ion sit e and had as ke d D avid t o bac kfill fro m “da y on e” and eve ry d ay t her ea ft er fo r t wo mo nt hs. Pla int iff testifi ed that he observed that the ba ck two legs of the sc aff

old were pl

aced on ci nder bl ocks due to the ope n h ol esat the c ons

tructi on s i te. P l ai nti f f also te sti f i ed tha t setti ng up a sc af f ol d on ci n der b l ocks v

i ol ate d O SHA

re gul ati on s a n d c on str uc ti on i n du str y cu sto m an d p ra cti ce . D es pi te be ing aw ar e o f t he da ng er o us co nd it io n, pla int iff t es t ified t ha t du e t o pr es su r e t o co mple t e h is wo rk, he de cid ed t o climb t he sc affo ld t o t ak e w ind o w me as ur eme nt s in o r de rt o pr o ce ed wit h his next phase of work. The deli berate encou nter except ion was, therefore, appli cable in this case wher e plaint iff

informed defend ant of t he da nger ou s co ndit ion whe re he wa s wo rk ing, a nd defen dant had reason to expect that plai ntif f would continue

working des

pite the dan

gerous cond i tion i n orde r to comp l ete h

i s work i n a tim el y man ner. Defe ndan t next contends that even

if it owed a duty to plai

ntif f, n o evi dence was

presented to estab l i sh

that i ts cond uct was a proxi mate ca use of p l ai ntif f ’si nj ury . To est abl ish pro xi mate cause, plai

ntif f m ust first show that defendan t's negli gence was the actual caus e of the i nj ury . Yoder , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 372. The negl ige nce at i ssue m

ust be a mat er ial a nd su bst an t ial fa ct o rin t he inju ry and no t jus t fur nish a c o nd it io n by w hic h t he inju ry is1-07-2335

-27-

made p ossi

bl e. Yoder , 3 81 I ll. App. 3d a t 372 . P laintiff must a lso s how t hat defend ant was t he le gal cause of the i

nj ury b y provi ng that defen

dant's conduct was so cl

osely tied to t he i

nj ury that he may be f ound l egal l y resp onsi bl e. Yoder , 381 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 372. Her e, defend ant ar gue s t hat t her e wa s no evidenc e fro m which the jury co uld infer t hat t he ground condi

tions ca use d the scaf f old to fal l off the c i nde r bl ocks c aus i

ng d ef endan t’s i nj ury . De f en da n t also a rgue s th at i ts c on du ct w as

n ot th e l eg al ca us e of i n j ur y wh ere th e h ar m to pla int iff wa s no t “r ea so na bly fo r es ee ab le. ” H o we ve r , se ve r al w it ne ss es t es t ified t ha t ba ck filling is im port ant to pr ovide

a saf e, lev el surfac e whi

ch can support a scaff

old. Pl ai ntif f testif ie d that after hi s f all, h e observed that the scaf

fold was at an an

gle and n o longer supported by the c in der block s. P laintiff’s expe rt also t est ifi ed t hat it w as his o pinion, base d up on t he pho t og ra phs o f the ground conditions and testim ony h e reviewed, that t he un saf e support for t he scaf

fold caused plaint iff ’s injury. Wit h re spe ct t o d efenda nt ’s fo re see ability arg ument , p laintiff tes t ifi ed t hat he repeatedly

asked Dav

id to backf

il l a nd pl ai ntif f’ s requests were ignored. Plai ntif f testif ie d that due to pressure to com

pl ete h i s work, h e cl i m be d the uns af e sc af f old to take m

eas urem en ts. W e n ote th at th e j ur y i s ch arge d w i

th de ci di n g th e iss ue of pr ox i mate ca us e, an d to su pp ort a moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. , t he evi

dence viewed in a l

igh t favorable to plain

tiff must overwhel mi ngl y f avor the movan

t so t hat “n

o contr ary v

erdict *** could e

ver stand.” Yoder , 381 I ll. A pp . 3d at 37 3. We find t ha t it ca nno t be sa id t ha t , ba se d o n t he ev ide nc e p r es en t ed at t r ial, no c ont ra ry ver dict co uld eve r st and. Acco rd ingly, we c onc lude t hat t he evide nce s upp or t s t he ci rc ui t cou rt’ s den i al of de f en da n t’s moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v.1-07-2335

-28- B. De fen da nt ’s Mo t io n fo ra N ew T r ial Defe ndan t next contends that the circui t cour t erred in den

yi ng i ts motion f

or a new trial wh ere s ev eral

tria l errors u nf ai rl y prej udiced i

ts def en se. Gene ral l y , a tr i al cou rt' s r ul i ng on a moti on f or a n ew tri al i s rev i ew ed f or an ab us e of di scre tion . Ruff

in ex rel . Sanders v. Boler , 384 Ill. App. 3d 7, 17 (2 008) . The t rial court ’s deci si on is

subj ect to this

deferen tial standard becaus e the trial court had the b enef

it of prev ious obs er vat ion o f the app ear ance of t he wit nesse s, t heir manner in tes t ify ing, a nd o f the ci rcum stan ces aidi ng i n the deter

m i na tion of credi bi l i ty. Boler , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 17. 1. Te st imony of Plaint iff

’s T re at ing Physicians Defendant ar gues t hat t he circuit co urt erre d in al lowing Dr. Sa ntucc i, one o f plai ntiff ’s treat in g phy si ci ans, to test if

y i n pl ai ntif f’ s case b y w ay of an ev ide nce deposi

tion. Def endan t not es th at p l ai n ti f f f ai l ed to disc l ose

th e op i n i on s or testi mon y th at D r. S an

tuc ci wou l d g i v e pur suan

t to Supreme Court Rule 213(f) (210 Ill . 2d R. 2 13(f)). Defendant argues t hat this fai lure to d iscl

ose was a vi olation of Rul e 213(f), and the c ircui t cour t t heref

ore should h

ave b arred Dr. Santucci fr o m t es t ifying. Ac co r din g t o de fen da nt , it wa s r ev er sible er r o r fo rt he cir cu it co ur t t o allo w t his t es t imo ny. Ru l e 2 13 (f ) p rov i de s, i n perti n en t pa rt: “Upo n wr itt en inte rr og at or y, a p ar t y must fu rnish t he ident ities a nd add re sses of w itnes ses w ho w ill t est ify at t rial and must pr ovid e t he fo llowing informat ion:1-07-2335

-29- * * * (2) Independen t Expert Witn esses. * * * F or each i nde pen den t exp ert wit ness, t he pa rt y must ide nt ify t he su bject s o n which t he wit ness w ill t est ify and the opi ni ons th e party ex pectsto eli

ci t.” 210 Il l . 2d R. 2 13(f

)(2). T he co mmit t ee co mment s t o Ru le 2 13 ( f) st at e: “T he pu r po se o f t his p ar ag r ap h is t o pr ev en t un fair surprise at t rial , without creat in g an undue burden on the part ies b efore tr ial .” 210 I ll . 2d R. 213(f ), Com m i ttee Com men ts (Ma rch 28, 200 2). In t his case , w hile plaintiff sta t ed t hat he pr ovid ed D r. Sant ucc i’s re po rt s in adva nce o f the de pos i ti on , pl ai n ti f f di d n ot disc l ose

th e s ub j ec t an d op i n i on s th at D r. S an

tuc ci wou l d te sti f y to pursu ant t o Ru le 213(f). I n dete rmin ing whether t he circuit co urt erre d in al lowing Dr. Sa ntucc i’s evidenc e de po sitio n t o be re ad t o t he jur y, t his co ur t co nsider s t he fo llowing fac t or s: ( 1) t he sur pr ise t o t he ad ver se p ar t y; (2) t he pr ejudicial effect of t he t est imony; (3) t he nat ur e o f the testim ony;(4) the dil

ige nce of the adverse party ; (5) the tim el y obj ection to the test im

ony;and (6) the g ood fa

i th of the p arty cal l i ng th e wi tnes s. Pancoe v. Si

ngh , 376 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 90 0, 913 ( 2007) . Th e c i rcu i t cou rt’ s dec i si on to e xc l ude or ad m i t ev i de nc e i s rev

i ew ed un de r an ab us e of di scre tion stan dard a nd w i l l not be reverse d ab sen

t an a bus e of that discre

tion . Pan coe , 37 6 I ll. App. 3d at 913. An ab

use of discretion m

ay be f ound only where n o reasonable m

an woul d take the v i ew ad opted by the c i rcui t court. Pan

coe , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 913. In den y i ng d ef endan t’s m otion to bar Dr. S an

tucci ’sevi den

ce de posi tion , the c i

rcui t court applie d the relev

ant fac to rs and f ound the fol

lowi ng:1-07-2335

-30- “We have a fusion, pr et t y serio us injur y, no pr ior evidenc e o f any acc ident s, a nd t re at ment s ince t hen. The t est imony of t his do ct or I d on’ t t hink comes as a compl ete surprise. It’s an e

xtensi on of [Dr.] Bauer and other treat me nt. It’s prejudici al

eff ect - obviousl

y a ll such ev ide nce is prej udic ia

l i n that it hu rt s t he de fendant . B ut I d on’ t see it as ou t weighing a ny pro bat ive value. The na ture of the tes ti mony i s p retty consistent w

i th, I thi nk, wh at p l ai nti f f tes ti f i ed to, an d yo u h av e d ep o se d t he pla int iff an d t he se o t he rdo ct o r s. I t hink it is a t imely objec t ion and I d o ha ve a q ues t ion as t o t he go od faith o f the plaint iff [] being di l i gen t. Ho weve r, loo king at t his in i t s t ot ality, I wo uld r esp ect fully deny t he
m otion to excl ude a nd th e m otion to bar.” W e f i nd no a bu se of di screti on b y the ci rcu i t cou rt i n a dm i tti ng the ev i denc e d ep osi

ti on of Dr . Sa nt uc ci. While t he cir cu it co ur t fo un d t ha t de fen da nt ’s o bje ct io n w as t imely a nd ha d s o me que st ion abo ut plaint iff

’s diligence , t he o t her re levant fact or s we ighed in favo r o f admitt ing t he evi dence. The ev

ide nce di d not unfai

rly surpris e or prejudice def

endan t. Dr. Santucci

was disclo sed as a n expe rt wit ness a nd plaint iff pr ovid ed d efenda nt wit h her re po rt s in adva nce o f the de po sit io n. Dr . Sa nt uc ci’ s t es t imo ny r eg ar din g p laint iff’s pa in, wh ich she at t r ibu t ed t o his fa ll from the scaf fold, was al so cumul

ative of earl y testi mony provided b

y Dr. Bauer, plai

ntif f’ s other treat in g phy si ci an. Dr. Bauer testif

ie d that although pl

ai ntif f h ad recovered from

hi s i ni tial spi nal cord i nj ury, plai ntif f wasbe i ng tre ated wi

th narcoti cs, w

hi ch would prec l

ude h i m f rom w orki ng. In a ddit ion, t he nat ur e o f Dr. Sant ucc i’s t est imony was c ons iste nt wit h t he t est imony pro vided by1-07-2335

-31-

Dr. Bauer and plai

ntif f h im self. Plai ntif f testif ie d that after hi s f

all f rom the scaf

fold, he contin

ued t o ha ve t r eme nd o us pa in a nd su ffer s fr o m pe r so na lit y cha ng es an d n au se a fr o m t he na r co t ic p ain rel i evers he m us t take . The c i

rcu i t cou rt prope rl y consi de red the rel evan t f ac tors a nd wef i nd no ab us e o f d isc r et io n inallo win g t his t es t imo ny. Defend ant also ar gue s t hat t he circ uit co ur t sho uld have bar re d Dr . B aue r’s t est imony wh ere de f endan t le arned of

Dr. Ba uer’ s m ost recent ex

am i na tion of p l ai ntif f shortly be f ore Dr. Ba ue r took th

e s tan d. D ef en da nt ass erts tha t Dr. Ba ue r testi f i ed tha t he trea ted pl ai nti f f f rom Octobe r 31, 20 01, to Novem

ber 14, 20 01, b

ut def endan t le arned j ust b ef

ore hi s testi mony that Dr. Baue r ex am i ne d pl ai ntif f on F ebruary

26, 200 7. Def

endan t ma i ntai ns that due to pla i ntif f ’sf ail ure to dis cl ose this rece

nt exam in ation pursuan

t t o Rule 213(f

), the circui

t cour t should h

ave b arred Dr. Ba uer’ s testi mony . Af ter cons i deri

ng th e rel ev an t factors, we f

i nd n o abu se of

di scre tion i n a l l owi ng Dr. Bauer’s testim

ony. The record shows that plai

ntif f stated t hat he h

ad l earned of the F ebruary 26, 200 7, examinat ion at t he sa me time t hat defend ant learne d o f it, a nd neit her defend ant nor t he ci rcui t court question

ed pl ai ntif f ’sgood f ai th or di l i gen ce. In addi tion , we f i nd th e f act tha t Dr. Bauer conducted an addi

tional exam in ation of pl

ai ntif f di d not cause unf

ai r surprise or prej udic e to de f en da n t. D r. B auer ’s

opi n i on at tr i al th at p l ai n ti f f ’s i n j ur y an d surgery l ef t h i m wi th perm anen t di sab i l i ty were c onsi

sten t wi th h i s opi ni on at h i s discovery

depos i tion .1-07-2335

-32- 2. A dm i ss i on of th e A IA-1 01 Con

tra ct Defend ant next ar gue s t hat t he circ uit co ur t co mmi t t ed r ever sible err or by admitt ing t he AIA- 101 co nt ra ct into evidenc e whe re neithe r S co t t nor Sam t est ifi ed t hat it w as a valid and exi stin g contract between them. Def endan t mai ntain s that without such testim ony, pl ai ntif f f ai le d to provide authen

tication a nd i dentif ic ation to admi

t t he docum

ent in to evi dence. Ea ch pa rt y is entit led t o p re sent evidenc e t hat is releva nt and mat er ial to its t heo ry o f the cas e. 160 1 Sou

th Mi ch i ga n P artn ers v. Me asuron , 271 I ll . App. 3d 41 5, 417 ( 1995); see also Gla bma n v. Bo uh all , 81 Il l . Ap p. 3d 96 6, 969 ( 1980) (a

con tra ct th at is u n si gn ed b y th e p ar ty to be ch arged ma y b e adm is si ble i f i t is m aterial to the theories of the

case, even

if said contract ev en tuall y prove s to be u

nenf orceab l e). Evidence tendi ng to show conduct incons is tent with an opponent' s the ory

i s al so adm i ssi bl e. 1601 S outh Mi

chi gan Partne rs , 271 Ill . App. 3d at 417. Here, Scot t t estif

ie d that he created the AIA-101 docum ent and b ot h parties ’ si

gnatures werei den ti f i ed at tr i al . Sc ott al

so t esti f i ed th at h e h ad “ an A IA con tra ct a s th e on l y con tra ct I mad e w i th [ the Shak i rs ].”In addi ti on, Sam tes ti f i ed tha t de f en da nt wasthe

ge ne ral con tractor of the construction project, which i s refl ected in the documen

t. While defen dant deni ed that it was the general

contracto r at t he construction si te, t he docum

ent provided ev

ide nce of c onduct that wa s inc o nsis t en t wit h d efe nd an t ’s po sit io n. We t he r efo r e fin d n o ab us e o f dis cr et io n by t he cir cu it court i n adm i ttin g the docum en t. 3. Alle ge d I mp r o pe rRe mar ks by P lain t iff’ s A t t o rne y Defend ant next ar gue s t hat it w as u nfairly prejud iced by plaint iff ’s co unse l’s insinuat ions that Scott’s

cond uct wi th res pect to si gni ng th e A IA-1 01 docu

men t was f raudu l en t or cri m i na l .1-07-2335

-33-

“ ‘A lthough i mproper argum

ent and attorney m

is conduct can be the b asi s f or granting a new t rial, t hat det er minatio n is left t o t he so und d iscre t ion o f the t rial co ur t and s hou ld no t be di stu rb ed on a ppe al ab sent a n a bu se of di screti on. [Ci tation] . The a

tti tude an d de mea nor of co unse l, as w ell as t he at mosp her e o f the co ur t ro om, canno t be r epr od uce d in t he r eco rd , a nd t he t rial co ur t is in a sup er ior po sitio n t o a sses s and det er mine the e ffect of impro per co nduc t on t he part o f couns el . [Citation].' ” First N at ional Bank o f La Gra nge v. G len Oaks Ho spita l & Medical Center , 357 Ill . App. 3d 828, 833 (2005), quo ting Zude r v . Gi bs on , 288 Ill . App. 3d 329, 33 8 ( 19 97 ). G en

eral l y , a re v i ewi n g c our t wi l l n ot f i n d r ev er si b l e error du e to i m pr ope r c om men ts by coun sel unl ess a party ha s b een sub stan tia l l y prej udiced b

y such c omm

en ts. Fi rst National Bank of La Grange , 3 57 I ll. App. 3d a t 833 . I n add itio n, if the t rial was fair as a who le and t he evi den ce was suf

f i cien t to support a j ury ’sverdict, a ca se wi l l not be reverse d upon

revi ew. Fi

rst National Bank of La Grange , 357 Ill . App. 3d at 833. Defend ant first co mplains tha t plaint iff ’s co unse l made impro per co mments r ega rd ing t he AIA-101 docum

ent durin g openi ng statemen

ts. During openi

ng statemen

ts, plai ntif f’ s counsel stated: “Sc ott is g oin g to get up the

re an d tell you, I wasn’ t the general contractor. I di dn ’t h ave a ny i nte nti on of be i ng the ge ne ral con tractor, b ut I put m y na me on that contr act so t he b ank woul d thin k that I was the general

contracto r so Sam Sha ki r can get an $800,0 00 [l

oan]. No w, ladies a nd ge nt lemen, t his is not a cr imi nal tr ial, so do n’t be in any way conc erned ab out that.”1-07-2335

-34-

Fo llowing p laintiff’s co unse l’s st at ement , t he circ uit co ur t sus t ained d efenda nt ’s o bject ion and st at ed “Le t ’s no t get into anything a bou t what kind o f tr ial this is.” The circu it co ur t ’s su st aining of the obj ection an

d in struction cured any

prejudi ci al im pact of counsel ’s statemen t. See Cl ay ton v. Cou nty of Cook , 3 46 I ll. App. 3d 3 67, 383 (2 003 ) ( gene ra lly , su st aining an o bject ion and gi vi ng a n i nstructi on to the j ury

cures an y prej udicial

i m pact of an error). De f en da nt n ex t arg ue s th at p l ai nti f f ’s cou ns el i m prop erl y atta cked Scott’ s cred

i bi l i ty on the st and by suggesting to the jury that he had commi tt ed a cr im

e. Du ring plai

ntiff ’s cou nsel’s cross-exam

in ation of Scott, t he f

oll owing e xch ange occurred: “Q. So you a re t elling us t hat you w er en’t t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or , bu t t hat you w er e go ing to be handed * ** $80 0,000 th at the b an k i s handi ng out on thi s l oan that y ou are gu aran tee i n g b y sa y i n g y ou a reth e g en eral con tra ctor an d th e b an k i s g oi n g to h an d th at m on ey to y ou, i sn ’t i t? A. It did not actuall

y b ut t hat’s the gen

eral i dea. Q. Tha t’s the wa y i t works, i sn ’t i t? W he n y ou di d th i s docu men t, wh en you signed the docum

ent, did y ou t hi nk y ou were comm

ittin g a crim e? A . No. [D efenda nt ’s co unse l]: O bject ion. T HE CO UR T : Ob

jec t io n w ill be su st ain ed . Ju ry wil l d isr eg ar d u sa ge o f su ch t er mino lo gy. Q. W hen y ou si gne d tha t docum en t, di d y ou wan t the b an k to rel y upon y our representation that y

ou were going to be the general contracto r on this s ite? A. Y es.”1-07-2335

-35-

Here , the c i

rc ui t cou rt’ s a cti on s i n su sta i n i n g th e ob j ec ti on an d g i v i n g a n i n str uc ti on to th e j ur y to di sreg ard the term

i nol ogy use d by plai ntif f ’scoun sel cured an y prej udicial

i m pact. Th e rec ord sh o ws t ha t pl ain t iff’ s c o un se l t he n c o nt inu ed qu es t io nin g S co t t wit ho ut us ing t he t er mino lo gy. Defe ndan t also argues that whi

le cross-exam

in in g Davi d, plai ntif f’ s counsel

in si nuated that Sco t t enga ged in mi

sco nduc t in conne ct ion wit h signing t he AIA- 101 do cument . D efenda nt compl ai ns of the fol lowi ng l in e of questi onin

g: “Q. If Scot t Yeager to ld thi

s j ury that he s ign

ed that document wi

thout ever i n ten di n g to prov

i de an y con tra ctor se rvi ce s b ut s o th at th

at d ocu men t wou l d g o to a ban k and that ban

k would then

agree base d upon that document to r el ease over $8 00 ,00 0 to th

e S h ak i rs , how d oes th at f ac tor i n to y our appr aisa l of Sc ott Ye ag er ’s int eg r it y? [D efenda nt ’s co unse l]: O bject ion. Fo rm. F ou ndat ion. Mischar act er izat ion. THE CO URT: As to form and f ounda tion , the ob

j ection i s su stai

ne d.” Agai n, the record shows that the circui t cour t sustained de fen

se counsel ’s obj ection wi

th respect t o t he co mp lain ed
- o f t es t imo ny. We als o no t e t ha t pr io rt o t his co mp lain ed
- o f t es t imo ny, pla in tif f’ s counsel

asked Dav

id, “ Woul d it surpri se y

ou if your brother signed an

AIA contract wit h S am S ha kir t o bu ild h is ho me?” Da vidr es po nd ed , “N o t r ea lly. * ** Be ca us e o f his integ rit y.” P laintiff’s co unse l’s line of qu est ioning w as in re spo nse t o D avid’s t est imony reg ar ding Scott’s i nteg ri ty i n s i gni ng th e AIA-1 01 docu

men t. De fen da nt las t ly ar gu es t ha t du r ing clo sing ar gu men t s, pla int iff’s co un se l impr o pe r ly stated t hat the AIA-101 docum ent was “f raudulen t,” in v iolation of the ci

rcuit court’s order1-07-2335

-36-

prohi bi tin g the use of s uch characterization. The record shows that during c losi ng argum ents, pla in tif f’ s counsel

argued the fol

lowi ng: “[T]hat brings us to what Scot t Yeager said. I only sign ed this document only

so th e S h ak i rscou l d g et a b an k l oan, on l y so t h e S h ak i rscou l d g et $ 82 4,0 00 , but I never in tended to agree t o any

of the terms or do any

of the work that was outli ne d i n the con tract. This bank sur e t hou ght he did. The bank ne ede d t his for co llater al. T he bank wouldn’ t give hi

m an y m oney wi thou t t hi s document. Sco tt Yeager signs a do cument , ha nds it ove r t o t he bank in li eu o f $82 4, 000 , a nd co mes in here and t ells you t hat t he do cument is frau dulent ?” At the cl ose of proceedin gs, defen dant’s counsel

move d to dis

mi ss plai ntif f’ s case or for a m

is trial ba se d o n p laint iff’s co un se l’s vio lat io n o f t he co ur t ’s o r de rby r efe rr ing t o “fr au d. ” T he cir cu it cour t st ated t hat it did not sust ain defendan t’s objection to plai

ntif f’s counsel ’s argument because it “di dn’t want to call

any undue i nf lue nce to that. ” The court explai ned: “I felt t ha t if I h ad su st ain ed t he o bje ct io n a nd ad mo nish ed t he jur y at t ha t po int it migh t no t ha ve se rve d a pu r po se . I t ’s alw ays a ju dg men t ca ll, s o t ha t ’s wh y I d id what I did. I heard [def

endan t’s] objection and I agreed wi th your obj ection, but not as strenuously

as y ou are arguing i

t here. I think that m

any court s m igh t all ow that ki nd of argum en t in term s of i nterpreti ng th i s as a f raudu l en t mi sreprese ntation. Mi srepresentation would have been a better ter m to use. I don’t feel hav in g seen1-07-2335

-37-

t his tr ial go o n and w at ch t hese lawyers and ho w t hey’ve o per at ed he re and altho ugh t he r eco rd do esn’t sho w you t he emo t ions t hat wer e t ied t o t he argumen ts both sides

were voci ferous an

d em ot iona l i n the argum

ents. An d I don’ t fe el that [pl ai ntif f ’scoun sel ] was acti ng i n a n i nten tion al di sreg ard f

or court order. And that’s why

I didn ’t act o n i

t t he m omen t t he j ury wal

ked out. *** I thin k when you’re argui

ng the case

and y ou’re talki

ng ab out a case that’s b een goi ng on f or two weeks

here, em otion s run hi gh. An d I compl im ent the l awy

ers on thei

r vigor in thei

r argumen

ts.” Based o n the circuit co urt ’s explanation of the c ircumstances in the co urt ro om and the c our t’s re luct ance t o c all att ent ion t o p laintiff’s co unse l’s ar gument , w e find no abus e o f discr et ion by t he ci rcui t court in den y i ng d ef endan t’s re quest for dism

i ssa l or a ne w tri al . 4. De fe nd an t ’s S pe cia l I nt er r o ga t o ry De f en da n t n ex t ar gu es th at i t wa s e n ti tl ed to a n ew trial wh ere th e c i rc ui t cou rt re f us ed to su bm i t a spe ci al i nte rrog atory on th e i ss ueof whether p l ai

nti f f wa s a n i nd ep en de nt c ontr

ac tor on t he da t e o f his inju ry. As def endan t poin ts out, “a tria l court ha s n

o di scre tion to rej ect a s

peci al i nterroga tory that is proper in

form .” Olde

nstedt v. Marshal

l Erdm an & Associ ates, Inc. , 81 Ill . App. 3d 1, 15 (2 00 8) . H owev er , the tr

i al cou rt does re tai n a trad i ti on al ri gh t of di scre ti on ar

y con trol ov er i ts own d ocket. Olde

nstedt , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 15. With respe ct to the propo sed speci al inter ro gat or y, t he r eco rd sho ws t hat t he circ uit co ur t not ed t hat “the re ar e eno ugh t heo ries flying around here that this

is sue i s really

kin d of m oot .” The court t hen

in dic ated, “I wis

h y ou had1-07-2335

-38-

submitt ed it last night , no t t en minut es a fte r w e’r e su ppo sed t o g ive clos ing ar gument s.” The co ur t fo un d t ha t “it ’s lat e, an d fo rt he r ea so ns t ha t I ’ve st at ed it ’s de nie d. ” W e fin d n o r ev er sible er ro r o ccu rr ed w her e t he circ uit co ur t fou nd t hat defend ant failed t o p re sent t he inte rr og at or y in a tim el y man ner. In addi tion, a speci

al in terro gator y i

s presented i

n proper form i

f: (1) i t relates to an ult imate iss ue o f fact upo n which t he r ight s o f the par t ies de pend , a nd ( 2) an ans wer re spo nsive there to isi nc onsi sten t wi th som e gen eral verdict that m

i ght b e return

ed. Sim mons v. Garces , 198 Ill . 2d 541, 563 (2002). The i ssue wh ether plai ntif f was an i ndepen dent contracto r is n

ot an ult imate fac t upo n which plaint iff ’s r ight t o r eco ver dep ende d and t he ans wer wo uld no t be incons iste nt wit h a ge ner al verd ict finding d efenda nt negligent . As p re viou sly discuss ed, t he j ury ’s aw ard coul d b e a f

f i rm ed base d on pl ai nti f f ’s pre m i se s l i ab i l i ty the ory, wh

i ch i s n ot depe nde nt upon or in cons i sten t wi th pl ai ntif f ’sal l eged status as an

i nde pen den t contractor. C. Defendant’s Contribution Counter clai m A gainst t he Shaki

rs De fen da nt las t ly co nt en ds t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t er r ed in e nt er ing su mmar y jud gme nt in f av or of th e S h ak i rsan d di sm i ss i n g def en da n t’s con tri b uti on cou n tercl ai m ag ai n st th em pri or to tria l . A grant of summ

ary j udgment is

appro priate when the pleadi ngs, depositions, admi ssions, an d a f f i da v i ts d em on strate n o gen ui n e iss ue of mate rial f ac t ex i sts an d th e m ov an t i s e n ti tl ed to judgm ent as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1 005(c) ( West 2006). The pleadi ngs, depositions, and adm i ssi ons a re to be c onstrue d aga

i nst the pa rty m ovi ng f or sum mary j udgm en t. Buerkket , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 421. If reasonabl e persons m

ay draw dif feren t inf erences f rom the undisputed1-07-2335

-39-

f acts or i f material f acts a re disputed , sum

mary j udgm en t is precl uded . Buerkket , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 421.

“‘A l th oug h su m mar y j udgm en t ca n ai d i n th e ex pe di ti ous di sp osi ti on of a l aw su i t, it r emains a d ra st ic means o f dispo sing o f li t igat ion and , t her efo re , sho uld be al l owe d on l y wh ere th e ri gh t of th e m ov i n g p ar ty i s c l ea r a n d f re e f rom dou b t. [Cit at ion. ] I f the plaint iff

fails to est ablish any element o f the cau se o f act ion, sum ma ry j udgme nt for the def

endan t is proper. [Citations.]’ ” Buerkket , 38 4 I ll. App. 3d at 421, quot in

g Wi ll ia ms v. Man chester , 228 Il

l . 2d 404 , 417 (2 008). We rev ie w de novo the c i

rcui t court’s g

ran t of a m otion f or sum mary j udgm en t. Buerkket , 384 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 421. The Shaki rs in itially argue that defen

dant wai ved thi s i ssue f

or review b

y f ai li ng to argue agai nst the grant of sum

ma ry j udgme nt in the Shaki rs’ f avor. However, the recor d shows that sho r t ly befo r e t r ial, de fen da nt mo ve d t o va ca t e t he su mmar y jud gme nt as t o pla int iff’s cla im against t he Shakirs. T he Shakirs op pose d t hat mot ion and also moved t o dismi ss defendant’s counterclai

m. Def endan t, in turn, opposed t he Sha kirs’ motion. The c ircui

t cour t denie d defendant’s mot ion to vacate and grant ed t he Shakirs’ motion t o dismi ss defendant’s cou nte rcl ai m . The re cord

the ref ore d oesnot e sta

bl i sh tha t de f en da nt a cq uies ce d to the g

ran t of sum mary j udgm en t, whi ch di sm i sse d def endan t’s c ontri buti on coun terclai m . Forf ei ture as i de, we

f i nd th at the c i rcui t court properl

y en tered s um mary j udgm en t where de f en da nt f ai l ed to prov i dean y sh owi ng tha t the Shak i rs reta i ne d c ontr ol ove r th e c ons tructi on project and saf

ety at the j obsi

te. Defendan

t argues that t he Sha

kirs a cted as their own gen

eral1-07-2335

-40-

co nt ra ct or and r et ained c ont ro l over t he co nst ru ct ion sit e. Defend ant sup po rt s t his claim with t he facts that Rubi

na si gned docum

ents wi th the Vil la ge of Northbrook with her na me as the gene

ral contractor and th

at the Sh aki rs h i red an d di rectl y pai d sub contrac

tors. Howev

er, the se f acts a re i ns uf f i ci en t to su ppor t a f i nd i ng tha t the Shak i rs were i n c ha rge of the constru cti on a nd saf ety of their h ouse. See Gent ile v. Kehe , 165 Ill . App. 3d 802, 806 (1988) (eviden ce that homeowner hi red su bc ontr ac tors a nd ne gotiate d a

nd agree d up on te

rms of the i r con tracts, a nd i n a ppl y i ng f or a bui ldi ng perm it f il le d in the bl ank requesti

ng the n am e of the gen

eral c ontract or with his own nam e was i nsuf fi ci ent to sust ai

n construction worker’s burden of sh owing tha t t he h omeowner was i n ch arge and control of work). Here, there was no evi dence to show that the Shakirs had an y co nt r o l o ve rt he co nst ruc t io n a nd sa fet y. R at he r , t he ev ide nc e in dic at ed t ha t t he Sh ak irs did not p articipate in the work, did not supervise or direct t he work, did not furni sh any materials, t oo ls, o r e quip ment, did no t sup er vise safet y at t he co nst ru ct ion sit e and did no t give o rd er s t o t he workers . Ac cordi

ngl y , def endan t di d not m

eet i ts bu rden to show a

f actual ba si s tha t the Sh aki rs retained c ontro l of

the work and saf

ety at the construction si

te. Fo r the a b ov e rea son

s, we af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt. Af f i rmed. MUR PHY, P.J ., and COL

EMA N, J., c oncu

r.1-07-2335

-41-