Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

ILLINOIS WESTERN DIVISION 

NICK GEORGEFF, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DON BORNEKE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

 Defendant. 

No. 3:20-cv-50313 

Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. 

DEFENDANT, DON BORNEKE CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, 

NICK GEORGEFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Defendant, Don Borneke Construction, Inc., by and through its counsel, Brian D. Hahn of 

Hickey Smith LLP, for its Answer to Plaintiff, Nick Georgeff’s First Amended Complaint states 

as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This is a personal injury action involving an individual plaintiff and a corporate 

defendant. 

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1. 

2. The plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Illinois, residing in Plainfield, IL. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 2 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

3. The Defendant is a citizen of the State of Minnesota with its principal place of 

business located in Eagle Lake, Minnesota. 

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:41
Page 2 of 7

ANSWER: Defendant admits only that it is Minnesota corporation and its office address 

is 41537 50th Street in Janesville, Minnesota and denies the remaining allegations contained 

in paragraph 3. 

4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC 1332 as the matter in 

controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and is between citizens of different states. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 4 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

5. The events and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Lee County, 

Illinois, thus pursuant to 28 USC 1391 (b) this Court is the appropriate venue for this action. 

ANSWER: Defendant admits only that this Court is the appropriate venue and denies 

any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 5. 

COUNT I-DIRECT NEGLIGENCE

6. On and before November 15, 2018, the plaintiff was employed by M.A. 

Mortenson Company and engaged in a construction project on a wind farm in or near the Village 

of Compton, Lee County, Illinois. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 6 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

7. Prior to said date, M.A. Mortenson Company hired the defendant to grade, 

maintain, repair and remove snow and ice from the dirt roadways used by persons, vehicles, and 

equipment on the construction. 

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:42
Page 3 of 7

ANSWER: Defendant admits only that it entered into a subcontract agreement with 

M.A. Mortenson Company on December 29, 2017 subject to its terms and conditions and 

denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 7. 

8. On and before said date defendant was in charge of and responsible for grading, 

maintaining, repairing, and removing snow and ice from the dirt roadways used by persons, 

vehicles and equipment on the construction site. 

ANSWER: Defendant admits only to those duties and responsibilities provided in its 

subcontract agreement with M.A. Mortenson Company dated December 29, 2017 and 

denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8. 

9. On and before said date defendant operated vehicles and equipment on the dirt 

roadways. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 9 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

10. On said date, the plaintiff was walking on a dirt roadway on the construction site 

in the performance of his work. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 10 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

11. At all relevant times, the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the 

grading, maintaining, repairing and removal of snow and ice from said dirt roadway. 

ANSWER: Defendant admits only to those duties imposed by law or contract and denies 

any breach of any such duties along with the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 

11.

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:43
Page 4 of 7

12. Notwithstanding and in violation of said duty, defendant, through its agents, 

servants, and employees, was then and there guilty of the following careless and negligent acts 

and/or omissions: 

(a) Failed to properly grade, maintain and repair the dirt roadway; 

(b) Failed to remove or to properly remove snow and ice from the dirt roadway; 

(c) Failed to make a reasonable inspection of the dirt roadway when the defendant 

knew or should have known the such inspection was necessary to prevent 

injury to persons using the dirt roadway; 

(d) Failed to use ordinary care to see that the dirt road way was reasonable safe 

for the use of those lawfully on the property; 

(e) Caused tracks and ruts to form on the dirt roadway creating a danger to 

persons using the dirt roadway; 

(f) Allowed tracks and ruts to remain on the dirt roadway creating a danger to 

persons using the dirt roadway; 

(g) Caused unnatural accumulations of ice to form in tracks and ruts on the dirt 

roadway creating a danger to persons using the dirt roadway; 

(h) Allowed unnatural accumulations of ice to remain in tracks and ruts on the 

dirt roadway creating a danger to persons using the dirt roadway; 

(i) Was otherwise careless and negligent. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12, including 

subparagraphs (a) through (i). 

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:44
Page 5 of 7

13. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing negligent acts 

and/or omissions, at said time and place plaintiff slipped and fell on an unnatural accumulation 

of ice, causing him to suffer severe bodily injury and to sustain damages of a personal and 

pecuniary nature, including but not limited to pain, suffering, disability, loss of a normal life, loss 

of earnings and loss of earning potential, expenses for medical care and services, and other 

damages, all of which are continuing and permanent in nature. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgment be entered in his favor and 

against the defendant in a dollar amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs of suit. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in his First 

Amended Complaint and respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in its favor together with costs. 

COUNT II-PREMISES LIABILITY

14. On and before November 15, 2018, the plaintiff was employed by M.A. 

Mortenson Company and engaged in a construction project on a wind farm in or near the Village 

of Compton, Lee County, Illinois. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 14 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

15. Prior to said date, M.A. Mortenson Company hired the defendant to grade, 

maintain, repair and remove snow and ice from the dirt roadways used by persons, vehicles, and 

equipment on the construction site. 

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:45
Page 6 of 7

ANSWER: Defendant admits only that it entered into a subcontract agreement with 

M.A. Mortenson Company on December 29, 2017 subject to its terms and conditions and 

denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15. 

16. On and before said date defendant possessed, operated, managed, maintained, 

designed, inspected, planned and/or controlled the dirt roadways used by persons, vehicles, and 

equipment on the construction site. 

ANSWER: Defendant admits only to those duties and responsibilities provided in its 

subcontract agreement with M.A. Mortenson Company dated December 29, 2017 and 

denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16. 

17. On said date, the plaintiff was walking on a dirt roadway on the construction site 

in the performance of his work. 

ANSWER: Defendant is without sufficient information to determine the veracity of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 17 and therefore holds Plaintiff to his burden of proof. 

18. On said date the defendant, well knowing its duty in this regard, carelessly and 

negligently caused and permitted said dirt roadway to become and remain in a dangerous 

condition for persons walking on the dirt roadway, in that the dirt roadway was in a state of 

disrepair with tracks, ruts, and unnatural accumulations of ice present, although the defendant 

knew or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known of the dangerous 

condition. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18.

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:46
Page 7 of 7

19. At said time and place the defendant knew or could reasonably expect that 

persons on the property would not discovery or realize the danger or would fail to protect against 

the danger in the performance of their work. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19.

20. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing negligent acts 

and/or omissions, at said time and place plaintiff slipped and fell on an unnatural accumulation 

of ice, causing him to suffer severe bodily injury and to sustain damages or a personal and 

pecuniary nature, including but not limited to pain, suffering, disability, loss of a normal life, loss 

of earnings and loss of earning potential, expenses for medical care and services, and other 

damages, all of which are continuing and permanent in nature. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgment be entered in his favor and 

against the defendant in a dollar amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs of suit. 

ANSWER: Defendant denies Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in his First 

Amended Complaint and respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in its favor together with costs. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

HICKEY SMITH LLP 

Brian D. Hahn 

2863 West 95th St, Suite 256 

Naperville, IL 60564 

Telephone: (630) 402-6139 

Email:bhahn@hickeysmith.com 

Attorney for Defendant, Don Borneke Construction, Inc. 

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/14/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:47