SECOND DIVISION April 27, 2010

No. 1-09- 1759

ROB ERT F . KEA

TING, J R., ) A ppe al f rom ) the C i

rcui t Court Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) o f Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) ) 68TH A ND PA XTON, L .L.C., a

n Il l i noi s L.L .C., ) and DA VID L. OGLESBY and BO BBIE OGLESBY, ) joi ntly d/b/a OGLESBY MA

NAGEMENT ) CO MP AN Y, an Un inc o r

po r at ed E nt it y, ) No. 07 L 002863 ) Defe ndan ts-Appelle es ) ) (G onz on C ons t ru ct ion Co ., Inc ., an I lli nois C or po ra t ion ) an d V i ctor G onzon, Indi

vi dua l l y , d/ b/ a G onzon ) Co nst ru ct ion, ) Ho no r ab le ) Thom

as Qui nn, Def endan ts). ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CETH EIS de l i

v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Thi s case arises out of in

juri es sustai ned b y pl ai ntif f Robe rt Keating wh

il e repai rin g a po rc h at an ap ar t ment bu ilding ow ned by de fendant 68t h & Pa xt on, L.L .C ., and mana ged by defen dant Ogl esby

Managem

ent Compan

y (OM C) (collectivel

y, def endan ts). Plai ntif f f il ed pr em i se s l i ab i l i ty cl ai m s a gai n st d ef en da n ts i n ci rc ui t cou rt. In h i s f our th am en de d c om pl ai n t, plai ntif f added allegations that defendants knowingl y f ail ed to pro vide hi

m wi th wor kers’
com pen sa ti on i n su ra n ce as re qui re d b y se cti on 4( d) of th e W orker s’ Com

pen sa ti on A ct (A ct) (820 IL CS 30 5/4(d)(We st 2006 )); theref ore, def endan ts were presum ed l i ab l e f or hi s i nj uri es.1-09-1759

1 GC I an d G o nz o n u nsu cc es sfu lly mov ed fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt o n t he cla ims

ag ain st t he m. T he y ar e n o t pa r t ies t o t he inst an t ap pe al. - 2 - On de f en da nts ’ m oti on, the ci rcu i t cou rt str uc k the al l eg ati

ons pe rtai ni ng to the A ct f or lac k of
su bj ec t matte r j urisd

i cti on. Th e c ourt th

en gra nte d sum mary j udg men t f or de f en da nts on pl ai nti f f ’s pre m i se s l i ab i l i ty cl ai m s. P l ai nti f f now appe als f rom the ci rcu i t cou rts’ orde rs . F or t he fo llo win g r ea so ns, we affir m. 68th & Pax ton owns a thre e-f l oor residen

tia l apartm en t bui l di ng a t 6755 S. Pa

xton S treet. OMC manage s t he building t hro ugh D avid and Bo bbie Ogles by. OMC so ught t o r eplac e t he wood en porche s a

t the bu i l di ng . It h i red Gon zon Constru cti on, Inc. ( GC I), ow

ne d by Vi ctor Go nzo n, t o pe rfo rm t he d emo litio n an d r ec o nst ru ct io n o f t he p o rc hes . G CI in t ur n hir ed pla int iff t o p er for m the d emolit ion. On Ma rc h 1, 200 7, plaint iff fell f ro m the t hird- floo r p or ch at t he apartm en t bui l di ng a nd l anded on a f ence b elow, suf

f eri ng s ev ere i

nj uri es. Plai ntif f s ued for dam

ages i n the ci rcuit court. In counts I and II of hi s thi rd amen ded
com pl ai n t, p l ai n ti f f as se rte d n eg l i gen ce cl ai m s a gai n st G CI an d G on zon, re sp ec ti

v el y . In cou n ts III and V, plai

ntif f asserted premises

li abili ty clai ms agai nst 68t h & Paxton and OMC,
re spe ct ively. In co unt IV , p laintiff asser t ed a negligenc e claim aga inst D avid Og lesby i ndi vi dual l y , whi ch he l ater volu

ntari l y di sm i sse d. Fo l l owi n g th e d i sc ov er y period, de f

en da n ts f i l ed a m oti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t,
ar guing t hat plaint iff

failed t o e st ablish tha t any alleged bre ach o f dut y by defendant s wa s t he pro xi mate cause of hi s in

juries. 1 In

su ppor t of the i r m oti on, de f en da nts rel i ed i n p art u pon pla in tif f’ s deposition. Plai

ntif f testif ie d that he had b een workin g for Vi ctor Gonzon for about1-09-1759

- 3 -

18 months

dem oli shi ng porches, i

ncl udin g the one at defen

dants’ apartme

nt bui ldi ng. He t es t ified t hat he w as no t a fo re man, but t hat he h ad t he mo st exp er ienc e o f t he w o rk er s. Pla int iff testi f i ed th at he

dem oli shed th e wooden

rai l s an d picketsthat su

rround the p eri meter of a porch
. Bas ed on the photograph

i c ex hi bi ts, the p orche s hav e two rai l s, ori en ted horizontal

l y , that are at t ache d at bot h ends t o a sup po rt po st . T her e ar e also many picket s, o rient ed ve rt ically and
sev eral i nche s ap art, that ar

e attach ed to the top an

d bottom rai l s. Acco rd ing t o p laintiff, t he pick et s ar e us ually att ache d t o t he r ails on t he o ut side o f the porch. Plai

nti ff descri bed h i s gen eral techn i que i n dem olishi ng a p orch as f

oll ows: “Ther e’s a t op ra il and a bo t t om r ail. ** * I usu ally hi t t he bo t t om wit h t he hammer. *** I hit t he pick et off t he bo t t om r ail fi rst . And I hit – t hen I hit t he t op ra il, the picke t off t he t op , p ut my hand on it and g ive it a w hack . And t hen I t hr o w t he pic ke t [ s] do wn o ne at a t ime. I f t he y’r e r ea l st ur dy, t he n w ha t will happ en, when I hit t he pick et at t he t op , t he t op ra il m ight co me loo se. The n I wil l h ave to take it off f

rom the secti on. But most of the tim e I just t ake a picket and k noc k t hem. Kno ck t hem at t he bo t t om, kno ck t hem at t he t op , p ut t hem in a pile. * ** T ake t he t op ra il off, t ake t he bo t t om r ail off, g o o nt o t he next sec t ion.
*** [T ]he picke t is on t he o ut side [ of t he po rc h]. *** [T ]he bot t om r ail is on t he i ns i de [of the p orch].” Ho weve r, plaint iff

st at ed t hat t he pick et s o n t he po rc h at defend ant s’ ap ar t ment bu ilding
were attached to the ra

i l s on th e i ns i de of the p orch. H e stated

that he woul

d take th e porch apart di ffe r en t ly und er t he se cir cu mst an ce s. S pe cif ica lly:1-09-1759

- 4 - “[ I ] n a ca se like t his I wo uld n’t t ak e t he pic ke t s o ut . ** * I wo uld t ak e it and I wo uld r emove t he t op ra il f irst . * ** And pull t he t hing do wn so it’s on t he dec k. *** And t hen r emove t he bo t t om r ail. ** * And t hen pu ll the who le thing
o ff in o ne p iec e, and t hen kno ck t he p ick et s o ff. Q. Okay. A

nd then after y ou would do t hat, would there be n ot hi ng? A. Th ere w oul d be

nothi ng th ere.” He lat er re iter at ed t hat he wo uld no t st rike t he pick et s while t hey wer e at t ache d t o t he r ails on t he inside o f the po rc h beca use in that cas e, he wo uld have t o “lea n ove r t he r ail to get t o t hem. And t ha t ’s a lo t o f wo rk. ** * [ I ] f yo u ju st kn o ck t he m – k no ck it do wn an d le an it up ag ain st t he wa ll, y ou can sm ack th e pi cketsout.” He al so testif i ed th at the ra

i l s on th e porch at def endan ts’ a partm en t bui l di ng were “screwed together,” rather than nai le d, which m

eant that he had to “wha

ck i t harder.” He t est ifi ed t hat t he r ails may have been s cr ewe d t og et her beca use t he wo od was “bad. ” I n fact , he i nd i ca ted i n a photogra ph tha t the wood en pos ts w ere

rotten an d that m ay ha ve be en the rea son that t he rai

ls and posts were screwed together. He describe d the porch at defen dants’ b uil din g as bei ng i n “ bad sh ape.” He recogni

zed that it had b een “

patched” i

n pl aces where the porch had been previously

repaired. Nev

ertheles s, he ackn

owledged that “wh

en I go out to a j ob si

te *** the guy is buy in g a new porch, i

t is n ot because

the old one i s good.” Abou t an ho ur aft er st ar t ing wo rk , p laintiff fell fro m the p or ch and impaled himself on a wrought iron fen

ce post below. He testif

ie d that he di d not know how he had f alle n. He stated:1-09-1759

- 5 - “I r emember ha ving t he hammer in my hand. *** I r emember hit t ing o ne pic ket, and that’s all

I remem ber f or t he wh ole rest of the day . The nex t t hi ng I
rem em be r i s tw o da

y s l ater I w okeup i

n th e h osp i tal . ** * I c an ’t real l

y tel l you how I f el l .” Wh en shown a photograph of

the acci den t si te, he could not iden

tif y f rom w here he had f

al l en . He al so could not remem

ber wha t direction h

is body was f

aci ng when h

e fel l, or whether h

is feet ha d c ome ou

t f rom un de r hi m be f ore h e f el l . Al thou gh othe r wor ke rs were pres en

t on th e day of the acci den t, pl ai ntif f did not kn

ow whethe

r an y one h ad wi tnes sed his f al l
. Pla int iff did no t kn o w if h e w as ho ldin g o nt o t he r ailing o rwh et he rhis b o dy w as in
co nt act wit h t he r ailing in any way at t he t ime of t he ac cident . H e also did no t re call leaning
o ve rt he r ailing t o r emo ve t he pic ke t s. He ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t he may ha ve t o ld s o me p eo ple in the course of conversation that he was leani ng over the raili

ng when i t colla psed, but adm

itted that he was

onl y gues si ng. Plai ntif f al so test if ie d that it was rai

ni ng wh il e he was working an

d that he had gotten sl i ghtl y wet. He a

ckn owl edge d tha

t the wooden

porch f l oor beca me sl i ppery wh en wet. Howev er, he di d not rec al

l sl i ppi ng or s l i di ng. Nev erthe l ess , he

stated that he

had to be m

ore car eful t han us ual t o a void slipping and falli ng. When ask ed w het her t he r ain may have
co nt r ibu t ed t o his fa ll, h e r ep lied , “I co uld n’t t ell yo u. ** * I do n’t r eme mbe ran yt hing
. T he o nly thin g I remem

ber i s I went there, I had the ham me r in my han d, I gave i t a whack, and then

I was in the hospi tal.” Wh en asked w

hat he took a “whack” at, he repl ie d:1-09-1759

- 6 - “ A . The ra

i l , but I don’ t rem

em be r i f i t wa s th e top rai l , th e b ottom

rai l or th e p i cket, I j us t – Q. Just some parts of the raili ng? A. Y eah .” Ch es ter a nd Jos ep h Drap i

ns ki also w ere

work i ng at the a pa rtm en t bu i l di ng on th e day of the accident. However, nei ther of them

saw plai ntif f f all f rom the bal

cony . They

had thei r backs toward pl ai ntif f as they worked. In response to the summ

ary judgme

nt motion, pl

ai ntif f adm itted that t here was n

o direct evi dence of the cause of h

is in jury. However, he argued that there was ci rcumstantial

evi dence t o su pp o r t his c o nt en t io n t ha t r eg ar dle ss o f wh et he rhe wa s le an ing o n t he r ail o rslip pe d a nd fell in to the rail, the rail

itsel f f ai le d to prot ect hi

m f rom f alli ng off of the porch beca

use i t was i m prop erl y atta ch ed to the su ppor t pos t. To supp ort hi s c onte nti on, he rel i eson th ree piec esof
ev i de nc e: (1) a 2 004

bu i l di ng i ns pe cti on r ep ort; (2) the

af f i da vi t of a c ons tructi on a dm i ni stra ti on expert; and (3) an

excerpt from

Gonzon’s deposi

tion. The bui

ldi ng i nspection report , prepared for David O glesby in 200 4, st at ed in r elevant par t t hat “numero us s t ru ct ur al members o f the wood r ear porch were im properly /in adequately

fas tened and were n

ot properly

bolted together.” Plai ntif f’ s expert, Chri stopher Chwedy k, asserted in

hi s af fi davi t t hat ci ty bui ldi ng code required a wooden porch rail to be ab le to withs tand 200 pounds of thrust force. Al though pl ai nti f f onl y we i ghed 175 to 180

poun ds , Ch we dy k c onc l ude d that i

t wa s “ more l i ke l y tha n n ot t ha t t he r ea so n t ha t t he r ailing de t ac he d fr o m t he po st in t he ar ea wh er e p laint iff fell is be ca us e it was not adequately

or pro perly

attached to support plain tif f’ s weight comi

ng i n contact with i

t.”1-09-1759

- 7 -

Chwe dyk did not inspec t t he ac cident site , bu t re viewed pho t og ra phs o f it, a s we ll as the building i ns pecti on rep ort and the dep osi

tions take n i n th i s ca se. H e was

not dep osed. Durin g hi s exam

in ation by pla in tif f’ s atto rney, Gonzon testifi ed that he was n

ot on si te at the tim e of plai ntif f’ s acci dent. He stated t hat at some tim e after the acci

dent, he wen

t t o t he area of the porch f

rom where pl

ai ntif f was bel ie ved to have f

alle n. He testif

ie d that t he top rail

was miss ing an d t ha t it ha d la nd ed o n t he firs t flo o r . He wa s no t as ke d h o w h e k ne w it wa s t he sa me r ail t ha t ha d b ee n o n t he t hir d- flo o rpo r ch
. He als o t es t ified t ha t he did no t be lieve t ha t t he r ail had b roken but, rather, t hat the screws h oldi ng the rai l “ gave way.” He stated t hat that occurr ed beca use t he r ail was “sc re wed into ro t t en wo od and [ plaint iff ] w as leaning – [ plaint iff

’s] weight
wa s on the [top] rai l .” H owe ve

r, he te sti f i ed tha t he an d pl ai nti f f ne ve r discus se d the c au se

of hi s acci dent and h

e was not asked how he kn ew that plai

ntif f h ad l eaned agai nst the rai l
. W h i l e def en da n ts’ su m mar y j udgm en t m oti on wa s p en di n g, p l ai n ti f f f i l ed a f our th amende d co mplaint. He d id no t add new c ou nt s but , r at her , he add ed s ever al par agr aphs t o t he exi sting negl

igen ce clai ms. The new paragraphs alleged that defendants were “empl oyers”
un der s ec ti on s 1 an

d 3 of th e A ct ( 82 0 I LC S 3 05 /1 , 3 (W est 20 06 )) a n d w ere ob l i ga

ted to pr ov i de pl ai n ti f f wi th wor kers ’ c om pen sa ti on i n su ra n ce . H e f ur th er al l eg ed th at def en da n ts kno wingly fail

ed t o p ro vide him with insur ance . As a re sult , he alleged t hat sec t ion 4 (d ) o f the Act permi tt ed hi m to sue def

endan ts in ci rcuit court, where proof of h is in juri es consti tut ed a reb uttabl e pres um pti on of l i ab i l i ty a gai nst def endan ts.1-09-1759

- 8 -

De f en da n ts th en f i l ed a m oti on to s tri ke th ose n ewl y adde d p arag

ra ph s pur suan

t to section 2-615 of the Code

of C i vi l Procedu re (Code ) (735 ILCS 5/2 -615 (W est 200 6)). Defend ant s ar gue d t hat t hos e allega t ions w er e lega lly insufficient t o invo ke s ect ion 4 (d ) o f the Act beca use plaint iff

failed t o a llege t hat t he Wo rk er s’ Co mpensa t ion Co mmi ssio n made t he
re qui si te f i n di n gsth at def

en da n ts were statu

tory em pl oy er s a n d th at th ey kn owi n gl y f ai l ed to provi de h i m wi th i ns uran ce. Fo l l owi n g a h ea ri n g, t h e c our t gran ted b oth of de f en da n ts’ moti on s. On

th e m oti on to strike, the court found that the Comm is si on had ex

cl usi ve j urisdi ction to deter mi

ne wh ether defen dants were statuto ry em

ploy ers under the A

ct and whether they

knowin gly fai le d to provide pl ai nti f f wi th i ns ura nc e. The cou rt al so g ran ted de f en da nts ’ m oti on f or s um mary j udg men t on t he bas is tha t defend ant s had no d ut y to war n plaint iff of t he da nger ou s co ndit ion o f the po rc h he was hi red to repair b ecause the ri sk of i nj ury was open and obv

ious. Plai ntif f then appealed f rom th e court’ s orders
. Plaint iff first ar gue s t hat t he co ur t er re d in st riking t he pa ra gr aphs of his co mplaint rel ate d to s ec ti on 4 (d) of

the A ct. H e c onte

nds th at s ec ti on 4 (d) di

d n ot req ui re th e C om m i ss i on t o ho ld a pr elimina ry hea r ing t o de t er mine w he t he rde fen da nt s k no win gly fa iled t o pr o vid e h im wi th i ns uran ce b ef ore he could f i l e hi s cl ai m i n the ci rcui t court. Befo re we a ddr ess t he su bst ance of p laintiff’s first ar gument , w e must co mment o n a pro cedur al aspect o f this case. We ackno wledge t hat o rdinaril y, a chall enge t o t he circuit co urt ’s
su bj ec t matte r j urisd

i cti on s hou l d b e b roug ht as a moti on to d

i sm i ss pur suan t to se cti on 2 -61 9 of the C ode (735 ILCS 5/2-61 9(a)(1 ) (We st 2006 )). Scott Wetze l Serv i ces v. R egard , 271 Ill . App.1-09-1759

- 9 -

3d 478, 481 (1995). Ho wever, gi ven the uni que procedural posture of this case, we thi

nk that def endan ts’ m otion to strik e un der s ection 2-6 15 (73 5 ILC S 5/2-6 15 (W est 200 6)) wa s prope

r. Se ct io n 2
- 61 5 p r o vid es t ha t a p lea din g o rpo r t io n t he r eo f may be st r ick en be ca us e it is substantially

in suf fi ci ent in la w. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2006). That is, a m ot ion f il ed under
section 2-615 tests the legal

suf f i ciency of the pl eadi ng. Cohen v . McDonald’s Corp. , 34 7 I ll. App. 3d 6 27, 632 (2 004 ). In su ch a c ase , t he co ur t acc ept s as t ru e all well-plea ded fact s and
reas onab l e i

nf eren ces to be dra wn f rom th ose f acts a nd d eterm i ne s wh ethe r the a l l egati ons a re suf f i cien t to state a caus e upon

whi ch rel i ef may be gran ted. Cohen , 347 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 632. On the other han

d, a motion to dism

is s pursuant to section 2-619 admi ts the legal
suf f i ci en cy of th e p l eadi

ng a n d r aise s def

ec ts, de f ense s, or oth

er af f i rm ati v e m atte rsth at act to def eat the clai m . Cohen , 3 47 I ll. App. 3d a t 632 . T hus, t he issue is whet her , a fte r r eviewing t he ple adi ngs, deposi

tions, and a

ff ida vi ts, t here i s a genui

ne i ssue of m

aterial fact that preclude s di sm i ssa l , or whe ther d i sm i ssa l i s prope r as a matter of l

aw. Cohen , 347 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 632. Her e, defend ant s cha llenged p laintiff’s abili t y to invok e se ct ion 4 (d ) o f the Act in the ci rc ui t cou rt. Th ey di d n ot co n ce de

th e l eg al suf f i ci en cy of th e c om pl ai n t i n i ts e n ti re ty b ut, rather, argued that cert ai

n paragraphs

of counts III and V were i nsuf fi ci ent to t ransf

orm an o r din ar y pr emis es liabilit y cla im int o a v io lat io n u nd er t he Ac t . Ad dit io na lly, d efe nd an t s o nly
sou gh t to s tri ke th e of f en di n g p arag ra ph s f rom th e c om pl ai n t as a rem ed y , ra th er th an se ek i n g to dis mi ss the com

pla in t entirel y. F or t hese reas ons, defen dants correctly

sought relief un

der
section 2-615 i n th i s ca se.1-09-1759

- 10 -

A s to th e sub sta nc e of pl ai nti f f ’s arg um en t, we note tha t thi s is a ca se of f i rs t i m pre ss i on i n I l l i noi s th at re qui res usto i nte rpret s ec ti on 4 (d) of

the A ct. B ec au se

thi s is a matte r of statut ory construction, we appl y a de novo stan

dard of revi ew. Cass ens T ra nspo rt Co . v. Indust rial Comm ’n , 21 8 I l l . 2d 51 9, 5 24 (2 00 6) . O ur

pri mar y goa l i n i n ter pr eti n g th e A ct is to asc ertai n a nd gi ve ef f ect to the i

nten t of the l egi slature. Cass ens , 21 8 I l l . 2d at 5 24 . In

ord er to
make that d eterm

i na ti on, wem

us t rea d the s tatute

asa w hol e a nd consi de r al l rel evan t pa rts of the statute. Cass ens , 218 Ill . 2d at 524. Additiona ll y, we m ust give eff

ect to each word, cla

use, and senten

ce of the statute and ren

der n o part of i t super f l uous, m ean i ngl ess , or void. Cass ens , 218 Il l . 2d at 52 4. The pur po se o f the Act is to pr ovid e financial pr ot ect ion fo r injure d wo rk er s co ver ed by the A ct. Cass ens , 21 8 I ll. 2 d a t 52 4. T he Ac t wa s d es ign ed t o pr o vid e p r o mpt an d e qu it ab le recovery without p roo f of f ault for accidental i

nj uries that o ccur in the workplace, whil e also pr o t ec t ing emp lo yer s fr o m t he un ce r t ain ex po su r e o f law su it s br o ug ht by emp lo yee s in c ivil court. Luc hesi v. R et irement Bo ar d o f the Firemen’s Annuit y & Benefit F und , 333 Ill . App. 3d 543, 551 (2002), citin

g Mi tsuuchi v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 1 25 I ll. 2d 4 89, 494 (1 988 ), quo t ing Kelsay v. Moto rola, Inc. , 74 Ill . 2d 172, 180-81 (1978). However, an em ploy er-empl oyee relati onsh i p i s a prereq

ui si te f or an a ward of bene f i ts under the Act. Roberson v. Indus trial Comm’n , 225 Il

l . 2d 159 , 174 (2 007). Under section 5(a) of the Act, there is no comm on la w or stat uto ry ri

ght to recover da mag esf rom an em pl oyer f or i njuri essu stai ne d by the em pl oyeewh i l e eng ag ed

i n th e l i ne of dut y as an emplo yee. 820 ILC S 3 05/ 5( a) (Wes t 200 6) . Ac co rd ingly, the Act pr ovid es t he1-09-1759

2 Eff ective January

1, 2005, t he n

am e of the Industri al

Comm is si on was cha

nged to the Ill in ois W orkers’ Compens ation Com mi ssion. Pub. Act 93-0721, eff . January 1, 2005. A ccordi ngl y , “[r] ef eren ces i n a ny l aw ** * to the In

dustri al Com m i ssi on are de em ed , i n a ppr opri atecon tex ts, to b e re f

ere nc esto the

Il l i noi s W orke rs ’ C om pe ns ati on Com m i ssi on f or all purpos es.”

820 IL CS 30 5/13 (W

est 200 6). - 11 - excl usi ve rem edy for em ploy ees to reco ver f

rom thei r empl oyers f oll owing a cci dental workplace inj uries. 820 ILCS 305 /5( a) ( West 200 6); Boe l ke s v . Ha rlem Consol i da ted Sch ool Di stri ct N o. 122 , 363 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 55 1, 554- 55 (20 06). T o t ha t en d, t he leg isla t ur e h as de t er mined t ha t “[ a] ll que st ions a rising u nder t his Act *** shall, exc ept as o t her wise p ro vided, be de t er mined by the [Wo rke rs’ Co mpensat ion] Co mm ission.” 8 20 I LCS 3 05/ 18 ( West 200 6); Cass ens , 218 Ill . 2d at 524. Specif

ic ally , the Comm

is si on has the authori

ty to resolve “ [a]ny

dis puted questions of l

aw or fact” arising under the Act. 820 ILCS 305 /19 (West 200 6); Rob ers on , 225 Il l . 2d at 17 3 (“ In workers ’ com

pensati on ca ses the In dustri al Com m i ssi on i s the ul tim ate dec i sionm

aker”). 2 Wi th the se l arger pri nc i pl es i n m i nd, we now turn to the

l anguag e of

section 4 of the A ct. Section 4 co ntains regulations to ensure that employers m ain tain adequate wo rkers’ comp ens ation

i nsu rance and p ay comp ens ation

cl ai m s to thei r em pl oyee s. 820 ILC S 305/4 (West 2006) . In part icul

ar, sect ion 4(d) gives the Comm issi on aut hority to enforce t hose
re gul ati on s. It p rov

i de s i n re l ev an t pa rt: “[1 .] Wheneve r a pane l of 3 C ommissione rs * **, wit h due pr oc ess a nd after a hea

rin g, determi nes an em ploy er has kn owingl y f ai le d to provide cove

rage as requi red by paragraph (a) of thi s Section, the f ai lure s hal l b e deem ed an immedia t e s er io us da nge r t o pu blic he alt h, sa fet y, a nd w elfar e s uffic ient t o jus t ify
ser vice by the Co mmi

ssio n of a wo rk -st op or der on s uch e mployer , r equ iring t he1-09-1759

- 12 -

ces sat ion o f all business o per at ions o f such e mployer at t he plac e o f employment or job si te. *** [2.] Any in div idua l e mpl oyer *** who knowi

ngl y f ai ls to provide
cove rage as req

ui red b y parag raph (a) of thi s Sec tion i s gui l ty of a Cl ass 4 f elony . *** The St at e’s At t or ney of t he co unt y in which the vio latio n oc cur re d, or t he At t o rne y Ge ne r al, ** * ma y, in ad dit io n t o o t he rr eme die s p r o vid ed in t his Sec t ion, bring a n act ion fo r a n injunct ion t o r est ra in the vio latio n or t o e njoin t he operation of

an y such em ploye r. [3.] Any in div idua l e mpl oyer *** who ne gli

gently fai ls to provide coverage as req uired by

paragrap h (a) of this Section is gui lty of a Class A mi sdem eanor. ***
*** [5 .] Em pl oy er s w h o are s ub j ec t to an d w h o kn owi n gl y f ai l to co m pl y wi th thi s S ec ti on s

ha l l not b e enti

tl ed to the be ne f i ts of thi s A ct d uri ng the pe riod of
non com pl i an ce , but s ha

l l be l i ab l e i n a n a cti on u nd er a ny othe r ap pl i ca bl e l aw of t his S t at e. ** * I n t he ac t io n, pr o o f o f t he inju ry sha ll co nst it ut e p r ima fa cie
ev i de nc e of ne gl i ge nc e on the pa rt of such em pl oyer a nd the bu rde n s ha l l be on such em ploy er to show f

reedom of n

eglige nce resul ting i n the i nj ury. *** * * * [8 .] Upo n a finding by the Co mmi ssio n, a fte r r eas ona ble not ice and he ar ing , o f t he kn o win g a nd wilfu l failu r e o rr efu sa l o f an emp lo yer t o co mply1-09-1759

- 13 -

wi th a ny of the prov i si ons of pa rag raph ( a) of

thi s S ec ti on * **, the

Com m i ss i on ma y assess a ci vi l pe nal ty of up to $500 per day f or each day

of such fai lure ***.” 820 IL CS 30 5/4(d)(We st 2006 ). The origi nal text of the excerpt of secti on 4(d) above does not contain n umb ered pa ra gr ap h s. W e i

n cl uded pa ra gr ap h n um b er s h ere f or e as e of di sc us si on . H owev er , i

t i s worth noting that the ab sence of num bered paragraphs

is some i ndication that the l egi sl ature intende d for section 4(d) to be read as a wh ole. See Coun

ty of Du Page v . Il l i

noi s La bor Re l ati ons B oard , 23 1 I ll. 2 d 5 93 , 60 4 ( 20 08 ) ( no t ing t ha t wo r ds an d p hr as es o f a s t at ut e s ho uld no t be co nst rue d in i sol ati on). W he n we re ad se cti on 4 (d) asa w

hol e, tog ether w

i th th e C om m i ss i on’ s b road gra nt of
au th ori ty un der s ec ti on s 1 8 a

n d 1 9, we f

i n d th at th e l eg i sl atu rei n ten de d f or th e C om m i ss i on to de t er mine w he t he remp lo yer s s ub jec t t o t he Ac t ha ve faile d t o co mply w it h it s r eg ula t io ns a nd , if
so , w hat pena lties a pply. T he o pening p ar agr aph o f sect ion 4 (d ) mak es c lear t hat its p ro visions apply only after a panel of comm

issi oners co nducts a hearing i n accordance with due pro cess princi ples an d deter mi nes that t he em

ployer f ail ed to pro vide the requ isi

te insurance. 820 ILCS 305/4 (d) (West 200 6). The n, if the employer is dee med no nco mpliant, t he Co mmi ssio n st ill must det er mine wh eth er i ts n on com pl i an ce wa s k n owi n g or n eg l i gen t f or p ur pos es of i m pos i n g th e a pp rop riate pe na lt y. 8 20 I LC S 3 05 /4 ( d) ( We st 20 06 )
. Un de rpa r ag r ap h 3 , if t he emp lo yer is me r ely negligen t, it is subj ect t o pr osecut ion f

or a Class A m

isdem eanor. 8 20 ILCS 305/ 4(d) ( West 2006). However, if

the Comm

is si on determi

nes that the em

ploy er knowin gly fai le d to provide1-09-1759

- 14 -

insu r an ce as r eq uir ed , t he n t he emp lo yer may be pr o se cu t ed fo r a C las s 4 felo ny as de sc r ibe d in par agr aph 2 : t he Co mmi

ssio n is per mitt ed t o e nlist t he as sist ance of t he St at e’s At t or ney or t he Atto rney Gen

eral to effect such prosecut ions or seek inj unctions. 820 ILCS 30 5/4(d) (West 2006)
. In a ddit ion t o a felony pr os ecu t ion, an emplo yer who kno wingly fail s t o p ro vide t he requis ite i nsuran ce i s subj ect to ot her consequen ces. In particul

ar, paragraph 5 states that employer s who kno wingly fail t o p ro vide ad equ at e insur ance ar e no long er ent itled t o t he benef its and prot ections of the Act and may be sued in

civ il cour t. 820 ILCS 305 /4(d) ( West 2006) . In suc h an action, pro of of inj ury creat es a rebut table presu mption of t he employer’s l i ab i l i ty . 82 0 I LC S 3 05 /4 (d) (W est 20 06 ). A

l th oug h th e em pl oy er may atte m pt to d i sprove i ts l i ab i l i ty, i t ma y not rel y on the def en se of ass um pti on of the risk, n

egl i gen ce, or tha t the i nj ury was caused by a f

ell ow employ

ee in doing so. 820 I LCS 305/4(d ) (West 200 6). E mpl oyers also are not entitled to the li

mi tations on dam

ages provided by

the Act. See 820 ILCS 305/7, 8, 10, 11 (W es t 200 6). Par

agraph 8 also em

pow ers the Com m i ss i on to ass es s c i

vi l pe na l ti esf or empl oyers who knowingl

y an d wil ful ly fai l or refuse to comply

with section 4(d). 82 0 ILCS 305/4(d ) (West 200 6). Nevert heless, these penalties appl y onl y af ter t he Comm

issi on fi rst determi nes that the em

ploy er knowin gly fai le d to compl

y w ith i ts requirem

ent to pr ovide adequate insurance. 820 ILCS 305/4(d) (Wes t 2006). T hus, we concl

ude that clai

ms of an employer ’s failure t o p ro vide wo rk er s’ co mpensa t ion insur ance must be pr ese nt ed t o t he Com m i ss i on f or a h ea ri ng be f ore a n a cti on m ay be f i l ed i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt un de r s ec ti on 4 (d) of th e A ct.1-09-1759

- 15 -

W e a ren ot pe rsuade d b y pl ai n ti f f ’s argu men t th at th e C om m i ss i on i s on l y re qui re d to hol d a he ari ng to make a

de term i na ti on of an em pl oyer’ s n onc om pl i an cef or th e p urp ose

of effect uat ing t he t er ms of pa ra gr aph 1 . H e claims t hat beca use t her e is no hear ing re quir ement pr efacing e ach p ar agr aph o f sect ion 4 (d ), t hen t he legislat ur e must have int ende d fo r t he hea ring to take place onl

y to obtain the work-st op or der provided f or in paragraph

1. 820 ILCS 305/4(d) (West 2006). Such an i

nterpretat ion i

gnores the basi

c prin ci ple s of statuto ry cons

truct ion, wh

ic h requi re us to consi der al l relev an t parts of the statute as a

whole
. Cass ens , 218 Il

l . 2d at 52 4. If wene ve rth el es s adopte d pl

ai nti f f ’s i nte rpreta ti on, an d re ad each pa rag raph of se cti on 4( d) as a sep ar at e dir ect ive to t he Co mmi ssio n, se ver al par agr aphs of se ct ion 4 (d ) w ou ld be rendered m

eani ngless. That resul

t would contravene our duty to give ef fect to each word, clause,
and senten

ce of the statute and ren

der n o part of i t super f l uous, m ean i ngl ess , or void. Cass ens , 218 Ill. 2d at 524 . Fo r e xample, par agr aph 1 1 pr ovid es fo r t he disp os itio n of a ll f ines and pe na lt ies co llec t ed pu r su an t t o “t his p ar ag r ap h ( d) ”; it wo uld be mea ning les s if w e d id n o t r ea d it t og et her wit h par agr aph 8 , w hich pr ovid es t he circ umst ance s und er which t hos e fines and pe na lt ies may be impo se d. Ad dit io na lly, p ar ag r ap h 4 dis cu ss es “c r iminal p en alt ies in t his subse ction (d)”; i

t would be m

eani ngless if we di

d not read it to gether with paragraphs 2 and 3, whi ch descri be the ci rcumstances unde

r which an

em ploy er becom es sub je ct to crim

in al prosec uti ons. Mo st impor t ant ly, if we ado pt ed p laintiff’s inter pr et at ion o f sect ion 4 (d ), per mitt ing emp lo yee s t o byp as s t he Co mmiss io n t o file t he ir c laims ag ain st emp lo yer s d ire ct ly in t he cir cu it
cou rt, w e w oul

d de f y the sta ted pur pos e of the A ct. The

A ct re f l ec ts a l eg i sl ati ve ba l an ci ng of1-09-1759

- 16 -

ri ghts , rem

edi es, a nd procedur

es that gove

rn the di sposi

tion of e m ploye es’ workpl

ace i nj uri es. Zi mm erman v. Buchh ei t o f Sparta, Inc. , 1 64 I ll. 2d 2 9, 44 ( 199 4) . E mployees canno t be per mitt ed t o mak e t heir o wn de t er minatio ns re gar ding t he t hre sho ld qu est ions u nder lyi ng t he pr ovisio ns o f sect ion 4 (d ) – namely, whet her t her e wa s an e mployment re latio nship su ch t hat t he Act applie d under the ci

rcumstances; wh

ether the purport ed em

ploy er was requi

red to provide
wo rk er s’ co mpensa t ion insur ance ; whet her t he emplo yer failed t o p ro vide insur ance ; and wh eth er th e em pl oy er wa s n eg l i gen t or del i b erate i n f ai l i n g to prov

i de i n su ra n ce – i n ord er to co nfe ra p r es ump t io n o f liab ilit y in t he ir fa vo ran d s ub jec t emp lo yer s t o un ce r t ain ex po su r e in th e c i rc ui t cou rt w i th out a h ea ri n g b y th e C om m i ss i on ch arge d w i th mak i n g th ose pr ed i ca te factual determi nations in accordance wi

th due process prin

ci ple s. See 820 ILCS 305/18, 19 (Wes t 200 6); se e al so Rob ers on , 22 5 I ll. 2 d a t 17 3- 75 ( t he Co mmiss io n d et er mines t he t hr es ho ld question of w hether a n em ploym en t rel ati onsh

i p ex i sts un der a f act-i ntensi ve anal y si s); Hol l y wood Trucki

ng, I nc . v. W atters , 38 5 Il

l . A pp. 3d 2 37, 245 (20 08)(th e C om m i ss i on det ermines ques tio ns relat ed t o a n employer’s po te ntial defenses) ; Cropmate Co. v. Industrial Comm’n , 313 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 29 0, 294 ( 2000)(the C omm i ssi on de cideswh ethe

r one i s a “ statutory em ploye r” un der s ection 3 of

the A ct). Plaint iff also co nt ends t hat t he pr inciples set for t h in Emplo yers M ut ual Co s. v. Sk ill ing , 163 Ill . 2d 284 (1994), and People v . NL Industries , 152 Il l . 2d 82 ( 1992) , ve st the c i rcui t court with jurisdi

ction superi

or t o t hat of the Com

mi ssion. We di sagree. In Sk ill ing , t he su pr eme co ur t was ask ed t o d et er mine the s co pe o f the Co mmi ssio n’s and the ci rcuit court’s juri sdi ction over the i nterpretat ion of

a workers’ compensation i nsuran ce pol i cy . Sk ill

ing , 16 3 Il

l . 2d at 2 86. It determ

i ne d that the c i

rcu i t cou rt h asorigi

na l j urisd i cti on1-09-1759

- 17 -

over a l l j usticiab l e i ssues u

nde r the Il l i noi s Consti

tution
. Sk ill

ing , 16 3 I ll. 2 d a t 28 7, cit ing I ll. Const. 1970, art . VI, §9. Ho wever, i n en actin g the Act, the legi

sl ature also vested or igi

nal jur isd ict io n o ve rwo rke r s’ co mpe nsa t io n ma t t er s w it h t he Co mmiss io n, giv ing bo t h fo rums conc urren t ju ri sdi cti on. Sk ill

ing , 163 Il

l . 2d at 28 7; 8 20 IL CS 30 5/18 (W est 199 2). The court then explain

ed that in ord er for t he Comm

issi on to have pri

mary juri sdiction, the legislature must div est the circui

t cour t o f i

ts juri sdi ction, or the Comm is si on mus

t be abl e to pr ovide

a spe cial ized or techn

i cal ex perti se that would he l

p res olv e the controv ersy. Sk ill

ing , 163 Ill . 2d at 288 . A f ter a na l y zi ng the l an gua geof the A ct, th e c ourt determ

i ne d that b y i tse l f , se cti on 1 8 of the Act, which grants the Com mi ssion the power to determi ne “ ‘[a]ll questions a

risi ng unde r t his Act ,’ ” did no t sufficient ly divest t he circ uit co ur t of it s o riginal jurisd ictio n ove r t he i nterpretati on of

an i ns uran ce c ontract pre sen

ted i n a decl aratory j udgm en t acti on. Sk ill

ing , 163 Ill. 2d a t 2 87, quo ting 82 0 ILC S 30 5/1 8 (Wes t 1 992 ); NL Industri es , 152 Il l . 2d at 96 -97. Ad dit io na lly , th e i

nte rpreta ti on of an i ns ura nc e c ontr ac t, wh ate ve r i ts sub j ec t matte r, di d n

ot
r eq uir e t he ex pe rt ise o f an ad minist r at ive ag en cy fo ra p r o pe rint er pr et at io n; t hu s, t he cir cu it court retai

ne d pri mary j uri sdi cti on. Sk ill

ing , 163 Il

l . 2d at 28 9. On t he o t her hand, t he pr ese nt cas e involves que st ions t hat ar e uniqu ely suite d t o t he expe rt ise o f the Co mmi

ssio n. As s t at ed a bove , t he Co mmi ssio n is char ged wit h dec iding whet her an emplo yment r elat ionship e xiste d bet wee n t he plaint iff and t he de fendant , w het her t he defen dant was requi

red to provide workers’ com pensation in

surance, an

d whether the em

ploy er knowin gly or negli gently fai le d to do so. T he Com

mi ssion mus t fi rst make those f

actual de t er minat io ns in o r de rt o de cid e w he t he rt he en fo r ce men t pr o visio ns o f se ct io n 4 ap ply, an d if
so , w hich pena lties a re app ro pr iate . T hus, t he legislat ur e de monst ra t ed it s clear intent t o ve st t he1-09-1759

- 18 -

Com m i ss i on w i th pri mary j urisd i cti on s upe rior to th at of

the ci rcu i t cou rt wi th res pe ct to s ec ti on 4 of the A ct. The ref ore, Sk ill ingi s disti ngu i shab l e. Nor d oes NL Industri es contro l h ere. That case al so exam

in ed the question of

whether t he legislat ur e su ffi

cient ly diveste d t he circ uit co ur t of it s o riginal jurisd ictio n t o e nfor ce t he pr ovisio ns o f the Illinois Envir onment al Pr ot ect ion Act and be st ow ed it pr imarily upo n t he Pol l uti on Con trol B oard. NL Industri es , 1 52 I ll. 2d a t 89- 90. The spe cific languag e o f the st at ut or y pro visions a t issue in NL Industri es alt er na t ely ind ica t ed t ha t jur isd ict io n w as ve st ed in the Pol l uti on Con trol B oard or the

ci rcui t court or both. NL Industri es , 1 52 I ll. 2d a t 99. The
cour t co ncl

uded t hat bot h bodies sh

ared co ncurrent jurisdiction. Ho wever, because the express la nguage of the

statut e granted jurisdi ction i n both f orums, the legi sl ature did not demons trat e a clear i nten t to depri ve the c i rcui t courts of

j uri sdi cti on. NL Industri es , 152 Il l . 2d at 99 . In add itio n, t he co ur t not ed t hat t he Po llutio n Co nt ro l Boa rd lacke d t he po wer t o e nfor ce a ny of t he
re medies a nd, t her efo re , t he legislat ur e co uld no t have int ende d fo r jur isdict ion t o lie wit h t he Board a s oppose d to the ci rcui t court. NL Industri es , 152 Ill. 2d at 1 00. T hus, t he stat ut e’s
re fere nce t o t he Po llutio n Co nt ro l Boa rd ’s jur isdict ion wa s mere ly “an o ver sight ” by the l egi slature a

nd pri mary j uri sdi cti on rem ai ne d wi th the ci rcui t court. NL Industri es , 152 Ill . 2d at 99. In the presen

t case, unlike NL Industri es , there is n o inc onsi stency

in the Act wi

th respect to the Comm

is si on’s j urisdi

ction an d the court ’s. In f

act, t he l egi sl ature demonstrated a clear intent t o ve st pr imary jurisdict ion wit h t he Co mmi ssio n beca use of it s sp ecialized kno wledg e and expertis e i

n deci din g the fac t-intensi ve questions of wh

o empl oyers are un

der the Act, whether
an emp lo yer - emp lo yee r ela t io nsh ip e xist ed , wh et he ran emp lo yer kn o win gly o rne glig en t ly1-09-1759

- 19 -

f ai l ed to co m pl y wi th se cti on 4( d) an d, i f so, wh at p en al ti es sh oul d a pp l y un der the A ct. W i th tha t sa i d, i n c erta i n i ns tan ce s, th e l eg i sl atu re s pe cif i cal l y res erv ed to the ci rcu i t cou rt j urisd i cti on over crim in al prosecutions and i

nj unctions

to be i nsti tut ed by the state’s att orney or the atto rney ge ner al, and ac t io ns t o re co ver amo unt s o we d u nde r t he A ct t o be file d by t he C o mmissio n it se lf, where the ex

pertise of the C omm

is si on is not required f

or t he en forcem ent of those particul

ar penal ties. 820 ILCS 305/4(d) (West 2006). But see Sk ill ing , 163 Il

l . 2d at 28 9. Fi nal ly , we must address Eisenberg v. Indu str ial Comm’n , 337 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 37 3 (200 3), wh ich is t he o nly ca se t o ha ve ad dr es se d t he su bst an ce o f se ct io n 4 ( d)
. T he pla int iffs in Ei sen berg were em

ploy ers who had b een f

in ed by the Comm

is si on for fa

il in g to provide i ns uran ce to thei r em ploye es. Th

ey broug ht a decl aratory j udgm en t acti on i n the ci rcui t court agai nst the Comm

is si on alle gin

g inter al ia t hat t he Co mmi

ssio n lacke d t he po wer t o impo se t he fi ne again st t hem because i t did not first hold a hearin g to deter mi

ne that t hey

were “empl

oyers” und er the statute. Ei sen

berg , 3 37 I ll. App. 3d a t 377 . We re ject ed t he plaint iff

s’ ar gument beca use t he Co mmi

ssio n had in fact det er mined t hat t he plaint iff s we re employer s du ring t he
course of a sep arate i

nv esti gation i nv olv i ng v i ola tions of the A ct. Ei sen berg , 337 Ill . App. 3d at 376 , 38 3. W

e ul ti mate l y he l d that u

nd er th e u ni que ci rcu m sta nc esof tha t ca se , th e C om

m i ss i on wasnot requ

i red to cond

uct a f orma l he ari ng to determ

i ne the p l ai ntif f s’ status as em

ploye rs. Ei sen berg , 337 Ill . App. 3d at 383. Neverthel ess, we concl

uded that “under section 4(d), the Comm is si on has authori

ty, af ter notice and a hearin

g, t o det ermi

ne whether the charged part y is an ‘em ployer’ an

d to im pose ci vi l pe nal ties upon an

‘em ploy er.’ ” Ei sen

berg , 337 Ill . App. 3d at 382-83. We reaff irm that
co nclusio n her e and , a s discu ssed abo ve, hold t hat t he Co mmi ssio n’s jur isdict ion in making1-09-1759

- 20 -

those determi

nations is superi or t o t he ci

rcuit court’s. See Sk ill

ing , 16 3 I ll. 2 d a t 28 8. I n t his case, plai ntif f’s attempt t o fil

e hi s clai m i n the circui

t co urt circum

vented the pro cedural process prescrib ed by

the le gis la

ture. Acco rd ingly, the Co mmi

ssio n, a nd no t t he circ uit co ur t , ha d jur isdict ion t o d et er mine whet her plaint iff

co uld se ek r elief under sec t ion 4 (d ) o f the Act . P laintiff did not allege t hat t he Comm issi on made the requisi

te det ermi nations about t he appli

cabili ty of the Act and defendants’
com pl i an cewi th i t tha t woul d pe rm i t plai nti f f to pur sue re l i ef

i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt un de r s ec ti on 4(d ). Th us , ev en taki ng the f ac tua l al l eg ati ons con tai ne d i n p l ai nti f f ’s com pl ai nt as tru e f or pu rp ose s of ev al ua ti n g th e s uf f i ci en cy of th e c om pl ai n t, the c i rc ui t cou rt l acke d th e p owe r to ev alu at e t he m. T he r efo r e, by t he mse lve s, t ho se pa r ag r ap hs o f t he co mpla int we r e le ga lly i ns uf f i cien t and were properl y stri cken
. Plai nti f f also a ppe als f rom the ci rcu i t cou rt’ s orde r gran

ti ng su m mary j udg men t f or de f en da nts on th e p rem i se s l i ab i l i ty cl ai m . Su m m ary j udg men t i s a ppr opri ateonl y where al l of t he evide nce, viewed in the light most favo ra ble to t he no nmoving p ar t y, re veals t hat t her e is no ge nu i ne i ss ueasto an

y material f ac t an d the m ovi ng pa rty i s enti tl ed to j udg men t asa m atte r of l aw. Nort hern Il

li nois Emergen cy Phy si ci ans v . Landau, Om

ahan a & K opka, Ltd. , 216 Ill . 2d 294, 305 (2005). Although the pl ai ntif f n eed not prove his

case at the sum

ma ry j udgme nt stage, he m ust pre sen

t suf f i cien t evi den ce to crea te a gen ui ne i ssue of material f act. Wiedenbe ck v. Se ar le , 38 5 I l l . A

pp . 3d 28 9, 2 92 (2 00 8) . We rev i ew an ord er gr an ti n g sum mar y j udgm en t de
novo . Wi edenb eck , 385 Ill . App. 3d at 292. To est ablish a pr emises liabili t y negligence claim, t he plaint iff must pr ese nt sufficient fact ual evide nce t o e st ablish the exist ence of a dut y of car e o wed by the d efenda nt t o t he1-09-1759

- 21 -

plai ntif f , a breach of

that duty , and an i nj ury proxi matel y caus ed b y that breach. Mar shall v. Burger Ki ng Corp. , 222 I ll . 2d 422, 430 (200 6). Whether a dut y ex ists i n a particular case i s a question of l aw f or the cour

t to deci de. Ma r sha ll , 222 Il l . 2d at 43 0. Howev

er, wh ethe r a defend ant bre ache d t hat dut y and whe t her t he br eac h was t he pr oximat e ca use of t he plaint iff 's i nj uri es a re f actual matters. Ma r sha ll , 22 2 I l l . 2d at 4 30 . N ev

er th el es s, i f th e p l ai n ti f f f ai l s to pres en t suf f i cien t evi den ce to establ i sh

proxi mate ca use , then sum mary j udgm en t is appropri ate. Rogers v. Matanda, Inc. , 393 Il l . Ap p. 3d 52 1, 526 ( 2009)
. In th i s c as e, al

th oug h de f en da n ts a rgue d i n th e c our t b el ow th at p l ai n ti f f h ad f ai l ed to pres en t any evi den ce on the e l em en t of prox i mate ca use , the c i

rcui t court gran

ted sum mary judgm ent based on the a

bsen ce of a duty

owed by defen dants beca

use of the open an

d obvious na ture of the risk of

ha rm . Here , sum

mary j udgm en t was proper on both el

em en ts. First , p laintiff fail

ed t o e st ablish tha t defend ant s o wed him a dut y to war n him of the alle ge dly d an ge r o us co nd it io n o n t he pr o pe r t y. W he t he ra d ut y exis t s is a q ue st io n o f law , bu t it is al so a question of pub li

c poli cy because it requi res us to det ermi

ne wh ether a pla

in tif f an d a defen dant stand i

n such a rela tionsh ip to each other that the law i mposes on the

defen dant an obl i gation of reas onab l e con

duct f or the pl ai ntif f ’sbene f i t. La Fe ve r v . K em l i te C o. , 185 Ill . 2d 380, 388 -89 (19 98). T o make such a determin ation, we must balan

ce the foll owing f our factors: (1) the rea son ab l e f ores ee ab i l i

ty of the i njury; ( 2) th

e l i ke l i hood of i njury; ( 3) th

e m agni tude of t he bur den o n t he de fendant t o g uar d ag ainst t he injury; and (4 ) t he co nseq uenc es o f placing t he bur den on the def endan t. LaFev er , 18 5 I l l . 2d

at 3 89 . H owev er , i

t i s a x i om ati c th at n o l eg al du ty ari ses unl ess the h arm i s rea sona

bl y f oresee ab l e. Cli

ff ord v. Wharton Business Group, L.L. C. , 353 Il l . Ap p. 3d 34 , 42 (20 04).1-09-1759

- 22 -

We ana lyze the for ese eability of t he injury und er sec t ion 3 42 o f the Rest at ement (Se con d) of Tort s, wh

i ch sta tes i n re l ev an t pa rt:

“‘A pos se ss or of

l an d i s s ub j ec t to li ab i l i

ty f or p h y si ca l h ar m ca us ed to his invi t ees by a co ndit ion o n t he land if, bu t only if, he (a ) k now s o r by t he r eas ona ble exer cise o f car e wo uld d isco ver t he condi tion, and sh

ould real iz e that it in

volv es an un reasonabl e ris k of harm to such in vi tees, and ( b) sho uld ex pe ct t ha t t he y will no t dis co ve ro rr ea lize t he da ng er , o rwill fail to pr ot ect t hemselves a gainst it, and (c) fai ls to exerci se reasonab le

care to pr ot ect them agai nst the danger.’ ” LaFev er , 185 Ill . 2d at 389-90, quot in g Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Torts §343, at 215-1 6 (196 5). Here , w e c an

n ot s ay th at a n y i n j ur y to pl ai n ti f f ca us ed b y th e c on di ti on of th e p rop er

ty wa s fo r es ee ab le u nd er se ct io n 3 42
. Pla int iff alle ge d t ha t de fen da nt s s ho uld ha ve wa rne d h im t ha t “nu mer o us st ruc t ur al me mbe r s o f t he wo o d r ea rpo r ch we r e imp r o pe r ly/ina de qu at ely f asten ed an d were not properl

y bol ted togethe

r,” as stated i n the 200 4 i

ns pecti on rep ort. Ho weve r, plaint iff

, G onz on, and C hest er Dr apinsk i tes t ifi ed t hat t he po rc h was in po or co ndit ion, t hat t he po st s and ra ili

ngs w er e at t ache d wit h scr ews ra t her t han nails, a nd t hat so me of t he
sc r ew s ha d b ee n st r ipp ed
. Ad dit io na lly, p laint iff t es t ified t ha t t he po r ch ha d b ee n “p at ch ed ” in pla ces, where the porch h

ad been previously

repaired. Pl

ai ntif f al so acknowledge d that ord in aril y, when he i s hi red t o rep lace a porch, “it i s not because t he old one is goo d.” Thus, pl ai nti f f an d h i s c owork ers hi red to rep l ac e the p orch

rec ogn ize d the e xte

nt of the porch’ s p oor1-09-1759

- 23 -

co nd it io n a nd did in fa ct dis co ve rt he alle ge dly d an ge r o us co nd it io n t ha t pla int iff no w c laims was the cause of

hi s i nj ury. Conse quently

, we cann ot say that defenda

nts should have bel

ie ved tha t plai nti f f , wi th h i s exp eri en cei n p orch de mol i ti on, woul d f

ai l to di sc ove

r th at c ond

i ti on or fai l to prot ect hi

ms el f agai nst i t. Accordingl

y, an y i nj ury caus ed by

the condi tion of the porch
wa s no t fo r es ee ab le. T he r efo r e, de fen da nt s o we d p laint iff no du t y t o wa rn him o f an alle ge dly dangerous condi

tion i n thi s case an

d sum ma ry j udgme nt was proper. See Cl

i f f ord , 353 Ill . App. 3d at 42. Summ ary judgme

nt was al so proper o n the el em ent of proxi

ma te cause. Assum

in g that defend ant s had a du t y to war n plaint iff of t he allege dly dange ro us c ond itio n of t he po rc h, plai ntif f ha s n ot estab l i shed th at thei

r f ail ure to do so was

a proxi mate ca use of h i s i nj uri es. Proxi mate ca use i s an ess en tia l elem en t of a n egl i gen ce c l ai m . Berm udez v. Martin

ez Tr uck ing , 34 3 I l l . A

pp . 3d 25 , 29(2 00 3) . G en

eral l y , pr ox i mate ca us e is a qu esti on of f ac t; however, i

t becomes a que stion of l

aw when the facts all

eged i ndicate that a part y would ne ver be en titl ed to recover. Berm

udez , 34 3 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 2 9- 30 . Acc ordi

n gl y , i f th e p l ai n ti f f f ai l s to establ is h the el em ent of proxi

ma te cause, he has

not sustained h

is burden of

ma kin g a prima facie cas e an

d sum mary j udgm en t is proper. Ma

nn v. Prod uc er’ s Che

m i cal Co. , 356 Ill . App. 3d 967 , 97 2 (2 005 ); cf

. Berm udez , 343 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 30 (di rected verdict was

appropri ate wh ere the p l ai ntif f f ail ed to prove

proxi mate ca use i n a ne gli gen ce acti on). The par t y moving for summary judg ment ne ed no t pr ove its c ase or dispr ove t he
non m ovan t’s c ase . Kel

lm an v . Twin Orchard Country Cl ub , 202 Il l . Ap p. 3d 96 8, 974 ( 1990) , quot in g W ai te v . C h i ca

go T ra n si t A uth ori ty , 1 57 I ll. App. 3d 6 16, 619 (1 987 ). Rat her , t he
mova nt is entitled to summ

ary judgme

nt where i t can dem onstrate t he ab sence of

a genui ne i ssue1-09-1759

- 24 -

of m aterial f act. Kel lm an , 202 Ill . App. 3d at 974, quo ting W ai te , 1 57 I ll. App. 3d a t 619 . T he
non- moving p ar t y may

defea t a claim for summary judg ment by de monst ra t ing t hat suc h a question of m aterial f act ex i sts. Adam

es v. She ahan , 2 33 I ll. 2d 2 76, 296 (2 009 ). Altho ugh t he
no n- mo ving pa r t y als o ne ed no t pr o ve his c as e a t t he su mmar y jud gme nt st ag e, he mus t co me f orth wi th som e ev i den ce that argua

bl y would en titl e hi m to recover at tri al
. Ross v. Dae Jul ie , Inc. , 341 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 65, 106 9 (200 3). To est ablish pro ximate c aus e, t he plaint iff bear s t he bur den o f “ ‘affirmatively and po sitively sho w[ ing]’ ” t hat t he de fendant ’s allege d neg ligence c aus ed t he injuries fo r w hich the plai ntif f see ks to recov

er. Berm udez , 343 Ill . App. 3d at 29, quo ting Mc I nt ur ff v. Ch ica go T it le & Trust Co. , 102 Ill . App. 2d 39, 48 (1968). Liabi li ty agai nst a def endan t cannot be predi cated upon s pecu l ati on, su rm i se, or con

j ecture . Mann , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 974, citin g Wiegman v. Hitch-Inn Post of Li

bertyv il le , Inc. , 308 I ll . App. 3d 78 9, 795 ( 1999). Thus, t he pl ain tiff must estab l i sh wi th “ reas onab l e certai

nty ” tha t the de f endan t’s acts or om

i ssi ons c aus ed h

i s i nj ury . Mann , 356 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 974. The plai ntif f may estab l i sh proxi mate ca use through ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce. Mann , 356 I ll. A pp . 3d at 97 4. T ha t is, ca us at io n ma y be e st ab lishe d b y fac t s a nd cir cu mst an ce s w hic h, in th e l i gh t of ordi n ar y ex perien ce , re as on ab l

y su gg est th at th

e def en da n t’s n eg l i gen ce

opera ted to produce the i nj ury . Mann , 35 6 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 974 . It i s n

ot ne ce ss ary

tha t onl y one con cl us i on f oll ow f rom th e ev i den ce. Mann , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 974. Ho wever, a f act cannot be establ

is hed t hro ugh c ircu msta nt ial evidence unless t he circ umst ance s ar e so re late d t o e ach o t her t hat it is t he onl y proba bl e, an d not m erel y possi bl e, con cl usi on tha t ma y be drawn
. Wi

egm an , 308 Ill . App. 3d a t 796 . T hat is, whe re t he pr ove n fact s de monst ra t e t hat t he no nexist ence of t he fact t o be1-09-1759

3 Plai ntif f can not rely on Gonzon’s deposi

tion testim

ony, i n wh ic h he testifi ed that the rail “gav e way ” and l anded on the f

irst-f loor porch, t o create a question of f act be caus e tha

t testi mony l acks f ounda tion and woul d be i nadm i ssi bl e. Wiszo wat y v. Baum gard , 257 Ill . App. 3d 812, 819 (1994). Go nzon testif ie d that he was not present at the tim e of the acci

dent and di

d not discuss

with pl ai ntif f the ca use of h is accident. He al so f ail ed to supp l

y an y other b asis f

or hi s as serti

on. People v . Niev

es , 193 Ill . 2d 513, 537- 38 (2 000) (t estimony that lacks a p ro per fou ndation in the for m of the witness’s per so nal kno wledg e o f event s amo unt s t o no evidenc e at all). N ever t heless, for t he - 25 - in ferred appears to be j ust as probable as i ts exi stence, then the concl usi on that exi sts is

a m atter of specul ation, surm

is e, and conj ecture, and the trier of f act cannot be perm

itted to ma

ke that i nf eren ce. Mann , 356 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 974. Plai ntif f argues that his i

nj ury occurred when the rail detached from the suppo rt p ost because it was “im

properly /in adequately

fas tened.” He acknowledges that there is no direct
ev i den ce of pr ox i mate ca us e. How ev

er , he a rgue s th at th e b ui l di n g i n sp ec ti on repor t, Chwe dyk’s a ffi

davit , a nd Go nzo n’s t est imony per mit t he infere nce t hat , r ega rd less o f why pla int iff pla ce d a ny w eig ht o n t he r ail, he wa s inju r ed be ca us e t he impr o pe r ly at t ac he d r ail c ame loose f rom the post and fai

le d to prevent hi

m f rom f alli ng. Def endan ts argue that it is j ust as like ly t ha t pla int iff r emo ve d t he r ail hims elf a s it is t ha t t he r ail d et ac he d fr o m t he po st be ca us e it
wasi nadequatel

y f asten ed. W e a gr ee wi th de f en da n ts. Pl ai n ti f f h as n ot “ af f i rm ati v el y an d p osi ti v el y sh own ” wi th “r ea so nab le c er t aint y” t hat t he r ail de t ac hed fro m t he p o st , t her eby fa iling t o pr o t ec t pla int iff fro m fall ing. I t is undisp ut ed t hat t her e is no dire ct evidenc e o f the cau se o f plaintiff’s fall, and he re, pl ai nti f f ca nn ot es tab l i sh

ca us ati on th roug h c i rcu m sta nti al ev i de nc e. A

l thou gh a tri er of fac t co uld infe rfr o m t he bu ilding insp ec t io n r ep o r t an d C hw ed yk’ s a ffida vit t ha t t he r ail detached from the po st because it did not meet buil din g code st andards, 3 i

t i s e qu al l y l i ke l y th at a1-09-1759

re aso ns t hat follow , e ven if the t est imony wer e ad missibl e, t hat wo uld no t chang e t he out come h

ere. - 26 - t rier of fac t co uld co nclude fro m plaintiff’s ow n t est imony tha t he r emove d t he r ail him self and that i s wh y i t di d not prevent h

i m f rom f al l i ng. P l ai ntif f testi f i ed th at where the pi

cketswere at t ache d t o t he r ail insi

de t he po rc h, a s in this c ase , he wo uld “r emove t he t op ra il f irst *** [a ]nd pu ll t he t hing do wn so it ’s o n t he de ck ** * [ a] nd t he n r emo ve t he bo t t o m ra il ** * [ a] nd t he n p ull t he wh o le t hing o ff in o ne pie ce , an d t he n k no ck t he pic ke t s o ff. ” A ft er he did t ha t , “t he r e w o uld be nothi ng th ere” to preve nt h i m f rom f al l i ng of f the p orch d

eck. Theref ore , the n on ex i ste n ce of th e f ac t th at th

e rai l detach ed f rom th e p ost b ec au se of i ts fau lt y at t ac hment wa s ju st as pr o bab le a s it s e xist enc e a nd t he c o nclu sio n ad vo ca t ed by pla int iff is me rely speculation, surm

is e, and conj ecture. See Mann , 356 I ll . App. 3d at 974; see also Bakkan v . Vondran , 20 2 I l l . A pp . 3d 12 5, 1 31 (1 99 0) . A

trier of f ac t ca n n ot b e p er

m i tted to
ma ke such an

in feren ce. See Wi

egm an , 30 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 79 5- 96
. T he co nc lus io n t ha t t he r ail de t ac he d r at he rt ha n ha ving be en r emo ve d b y pla int iff is me r ely a po ss ible o ne , no t a p r o ba ble one. See Wi

egm an , 30 8 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 7 96 . A

b se n t thi s c i rc um sta n ti al ev i den ce of pr ox i mate cause, plai

ntif f h as f ai le d to ma

ke a prima facie case of n eglige nce an d sum ma ry j udgme nt was proper. S ee Mann , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 972
. To be clea

r, the exi stence of m

ulti ple in feren ces regardi

ng causation does not creat e a t riable issu e o f fact in this ca se. The issue be for e us is the sufficiency of t he evide nce o n t he elem ent of pro xi

mate cause in

establi shi ng plai ntif f’s prima facie cas e. Mann , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 978. Plai

ntif f attempted to establish that elem ent of his clai

m through ci

rcumstantial evidenc e. Ho weve r, t he infere nce he at t empt ed t o c re at e wa s sp ecu lative a nd co uld no t be t he1-09-1759

- 27 -

predica te for li abi li ty agai nst def endan ts. See Mann , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 974. Thus, we conclude that pl ai ntif f ha s com e f orth wi th no evi den ce on the e l em en t of ca usa tion and sum mary judgm ent was appropriate. Thi s i s not a case i n wh ic h the pl ai ntif f an d defen dant both presented evi dence of proxim ate cause and a j ury s

hould b e calle d upon to resolve the di spute. See Mann , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 974. Fo r a l l of th e f ore goi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt. Af fi rmed. CUNN INGHA M, P.J ., and HOFFM

AN , J., con

cur.REPORTER OF DECISI ONS - ILLIN OIS APPELLATE COURT

_________________________________________________________________ RO BE RT F. K EA TI NG , JR .,

Plaintif f-Appellant,
v. 68 TH AN D PA XT ON , L.L .C., a n Illinois L.L .C., and DAVID L. OGLESBY an d BOBBIE OGLESBY, joi nt ly d /b/a OGLESBY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, an Uni ncor porate d Ent ity,

Defen dants-Appell ees (Go nzon Co nstruct ion Co ., Inc., an Illinois C orp ora tion and Vi ctor Gonz on, Ind ivi dually,d/b/ a Gonz on Co nstruct ion, Defendants).

________________________________________________________________ No. 1- 09-1759 Ap pe llat e C ou rt o f Illino is Firs t Dis trict , Secon d Di vis ion Fi le d: Apr il

27, 2010

_________________________________________________________________

JUS TIC E TH EIS delivered the o pinion of the court. Cunn in gham, P. J., an d Hoffman , J.,concur.

_________________________________________________________________

App eal from the Circuit Court o f Cook Co unty Ho nora ble T homa s Q uinn, Judg e Pre siding

_______________________________________________________________ __ For PLAINTIFF- Lawr enceH. Hyman For DEFENDAN TS- Pa ul S . Fes ten stein APPELLAN T: Cy nthia S. K isser APPELLEES: Guy M . Conti Lawrence H. H yma n & A ssoc. Con do n & Co ok , L. L. C. 11 1 W . W as hin gt on S t., 74 5 N . De ar bor n S t. Suit e 1025 Chicago , I llino is 60654 Chicago , I llino is 60602