## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2747 C HRISTO PH ER S OJ KA, J R ., Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. B O V IS L EN D L EASE , I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10 C1607

— Suzanne B. C onl on, Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 18, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 10, 2012

Befo re B AUER, M A NI ON, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Chri sto pher S oj ka, Jr. sust ai ned se ve r e eye i nj ur i es whi l e wor k i nga s a ca r pen te ro n the T r u mp T o we rc o n s t r u c t i o n p r oj e c t
. H e s u e d T r u mp Tow er ’ s co nstr ucti on m anage r, Bovis L end Lease, ass er ti ng tha t i t had been negl i gent. Bovi s m ove d fo r s u mm ar y j udg me n to n th e g r o u n d th a ti td i d n o to we S oj k a an y duty o fc ar e to pr o vi de a sa fe wor k pl ace , a nd (ju m p in g fro m th e g en er al t o th e p ar tic u lar ) th at ev en if2 N o. 11

- 2747 i t di d, i t had notbr eache d such a duty be cause i t had no know l edge that S oj ka’ s s afetygl ass es w er e in ad eq u at e t o p re ve n t t h e inj u ry . Sojka fa iled to ad d re ss th is a r gume nti n h i s r e s p o n s e t o B o v i s ’ s mo t i o n f o rs u mm ary j udg m en t. Bo vi s thus ur g ed th e co ur t to grant i ts m oti on in l i ght o fwh at i t s aw as S oj ka’ s co ncessi on that ther e was no d isp u te ofm ate ri alf act on that point, a nd tha ti s e xa c t l y wh a tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d. I n ourvi ew , ev en tho ugh the cour t w as cor re ct that S oj k a co nc ede d the e y ewe arpo i ntb y f ai l i ngt o respo nd to i t, thi s too k too narr ow a vi ew of So j ka ’s case. H i s r es po ns e to Bo vi s’ s m o ti o n fo rs um m ary j udg m en t

— consi sting o fbo th a m em or andu m o fl aw and a c or re sponding sta tem ent o fm ate ri alf acts

— add re sse d sever al ot h er w ay s in w h ich B ov is’s n eg lige n c e a lleg ed ly caused Soj ka' s inj uri es. W e co ncl ud e that be cause a di spute of m at er i alf ac t r emai ns o n tho se the o r i es , s um m ary j ud gm en t for B ovis w as i n ap p rop riate. W e the refore re ver se.

I I n 2008, S oj ka w as w or ki ng o n the up per fl oo rs o f th e T r u mp T o we rc o n s t r u c t i o n p r oj e c ti n d o wn t o wn C h ica go . H e w a s t ry in g t o re p air a st ee l ca b le th at h eld safetynett i ng ar ound the upp erfl oo rs o fthe proj ect w hen the w in d k nocke d him bac k a nd a pie ce o fm eta lst ruck hi s e ye, causing se ver e inj uri es. A l though Soj ka w as w ea rin g s afe ty gla ss es att h e tim e, th ey ap p ar en tly d id not fi t hi s f ace proper l y; i nstea d, they l eft a sm al lga p at the t op ofhi s e yes thatal l owed debr i s t o penetr ate
.N o. 11

- 2747 3 Soj ka sued Bovi s Lend Lea se i n I l l i noi s s tat e co urt to re c ov er f orhi s inj ury. Bovi s r em ove d the ac ti on t o federa lco urt, as the parti es a re com ple tel y di ver se ( Soj ka i s do mi c i l e d in I l l i no i s ; Bo v i s i s inc o r po r a t e d in F l o r i da wi thi ts p r i nc i palpl ac e o fb us i ne ss i n New Yo r k ) a nd the a m ount in contr ove rs y e xceeds $75, 000. The com pla i nt co ntai ned one c ount o fco nstr ucti on n e g l i g e n c e , a c a u s e o fa c t i o n r e c o g n i z e d i n I l l i n o i s l a w. Soj ka al l ege d t h at B ovi s had a du ty to provi de hi m with a sa fe wor k pl ace a nd the n l i st ed se ve n the o r i es abo ut how Bovi s had br eached thi s duty ( i n ad d ition to an ei ghth ca tchal lal l ega ti on that Bovi s “ w as othe rwis e ne g l i g e nt ” )
. T he fi r s tf o urthe or i e s o fb r e a c h a l lma de a s i m i l aral l ega ti on: thatBovi s knew o r shoul d have kn ow n th at w eath er cond it io n s at the site w ere un safe at the t i m e in q uesti on, and i t e i thersho uld nothave al l owed work to p ro ceed o r shoul d have s topped ongo i ng work. The la st thre e theor i es setf or th ge nera l al l ega ti ons about Bovi s’ s f ai l ure to m anage the si te, fai lure to sup er v is e w ork, and f ail ure to provid e a safe en vi r o nm en t. The c o m pl aintmade no ment i o n o fthe eye w eari ssued to the w or ker s. The parti es proceed ed to di sco very a nd Bovi s m ove d f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Bovi s pre se n te d tw o ar gum ents i n supp or t o fi ts m oti on: i t di d not o w e Soj ka a duty o f car e unde rI l l i no i s l a w, a nd e v e n i fi tdi d, i tdi d n ot bre ach that d u ty beca use i t had no knowle dge that Sojka ’s protec tive eyew ear w as inad eq ua te. I n Soj ka’s m em oran d um of law i n resp ons e, he cont ested Bov is’ s vi ew o fi ts du ti es u n d erI l l i noi s l aw , but he r esponded4 N o. 11

- 2747 onl y g ener al l y t o Bovi s’s a rgum ent about bre ach with r es pec t to the s afety g l as se s. In f ac t, S oj k a st at ed th at“ th e du ty to provide a s afe worksi te f oral lem plo yee s g oes w el lbey ond the i ssue ofsa fety gl ass es. ” He ar gued that B ov is “ sh a re d res p on sib ility for th e d an ge ro u s c on d itio n s w h ich led to Sojka ’s inj u rie s” an d th u s p ro x im ate l y c aused tho se i nj uri es. Altho ug h S oj k a di d no t el ab o r at e i n the mem o r an d u m ab ou t t h e o th er d an ge ro u s con d itio n s t h at ca u se d h is inj u ry , he fu rn ish ed th at info rm at ion in h is a t t a c h e d R u le 56. 1 state m ent offact s. T he R ule 56
. 1 s tat em ent r efer re d to ev i d e n c e th a twin d wa s c o n s t a n t l y a p r o b l e m a tt he w or ks ite a n d w a s a n ot ab le p ro b lem on th e d ay of h is inj u ry . B ov is’s em p loy ee s h ad th e a u th or ity to st op w or k in uns afe wi nd c o nd iti o ns a nd ha d do ne s o i n the pa st, b ut th ey d id n otd o s o on th e d ay Sojka w as h u rt . Th e 5 6.1 sta te men t a l s o po i nt e d t o e v i de nc e tha t S oj k a was a “g r ee nho r n” ( a ca r pen te rwi th o utmuch e xp er i en ce ) a nd th u s Soj ka sh ou ld h av e b ee n w or kin g w ith a m or e e x p er ie nc e d “j o urne y man ” t o h e l p him r e s po nd t o the wi nd y condi ti ons and asse ss safetythr eat s m or e a ccurat el y. Bo vi s’ s r eply a ss er te d tha t S oj k a ha d f ai l ed to r es po nd to i ts ar gum ent about bre ach with re spect to the s afety g l as se s, a nd thus thatthe di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d fi nd that Soj ka had conceded the poi nt. W i th that poss ibi l i ty co n c e d ed , Bov is m aintain ed , i t w as en titl ed to sum m ary j ud gm en t in i ts favo r . T h e d istri ct cou rt ad op ted Bov is’ s sugge sti on. A l thoug h the cour t found that Bovi s o w ed Soj ka a d ut y un d er I ll inois l aw , i t grant ed sum m ary j ud gm en t based on Sojka ’s f ail ure to respon d to Bov is’ sN o. 11

- 2747 5

ar gum ent about the e ye prot ect ion
. The co urt note d that Bovi s’ s o ri gi nalco m pla i nt had i ncl ud ed th eori es ofbr each unrela te d to eye w ear, such a s the al l ega ti on th at con d iti ons that da y w ere too w in d y to perm it safe wo r k, b u ti te x p l a i n e d th a tp a r t i e s “ c a n n o tr e s t o n c o mpl aint al l eg at i o ns at su m m ary j udg m en t” w itho ut “dis cuss[ i ng] any ofthe al l ege d acts oro m iss ion s” or “l i nk[ i ng] them to ev i den ce in the re cor d to cre ate a fac tu al d isp u te for t ria l.” Soj ka fi led a m otion to recon side r un d e r R u le 59(e), argu ing tha t his resp ons e to the m otion f or sum m ary j ud gm ent had l i nk ed fact s i n the r ec o r d t o the a l l eg at i o ns inh is c om p l a in t; insu p p or t, h e p oin te d to h is R u le 56 .1 st at em en t. Soj k a fu rt h er co m p lain ed th at B ov is ha d unf ai r l y na r r o wed the c as e to be so l ely abo ut eye w ear, ev en tho ugh thatwas not Soj ka’ s theor y o f bre ach. In f act, S oj ka adm i tte d that he di d not re spond m or e di re ctl y t o th e e yewear i ssue because he con ceded that Bovi s had no knowle dge that Soj ka’ s e yewear w as i nsuffi cien t a nd thus there was no dispute of f act on that poi nt. Bu t, Soj ka ar gued, that w as not the e nd o fthe case . T o th e contr ar y, he ha d add i ti onaltheo ri es ofbr each, wh i ch w er e s up port ed by deposi ti on e vi dence se t o ut i n hi s Rul e 56.1 sta tem ent o f f acts
. T he district cou rt de nied Soj ka’s m otion to recon side r. I t r ej ec te d S oj k a’ s ci ta ti o n t o hi s Rul e 56
. 1 st at ement because , i n the cour t’ s v i ew , “m er el y pr es enti ng st ate
m en t s o ff ac ts w ith ou t a rg u in g h ow th ey are rele va n t is i ns uffi ci en t. T he c o ur t do es no t cr aft ar gum en ts f o rthe6 N o. 11

- 2747 p arties. ” Soj ka now ap p e a ls b oth the gran t of su m m ary j ud gm en t and the d en ialof his m otion to recon side r.

II W e rev ie w t he grant of a m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent deno vo , c o ns trui ngthe f ac ts a nd dr awi ng al lr ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s i n f av or o fthe no nm o ving party
. M oore v. Vital P rods. , Inc. , 641 F.3d 253, 25 6 (7th C ir. 20 11 ). Su m m ar y ju d gm en t is ap p ro p ria te if th er e is no g enui ne di spu te o fmate r i alf ac t, a nd the mova nt is e n tit led to j u d gm en t a s a m at te r of law

. Id. ( ci ti ng F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(a))
. It is c lea r fro m th e s u m m a ry j u d gm en t filin gs in th e dist ri ct c ourtthata dispute ofm ate ri alf act re m ai ns, a n d th u s s u mm a r y j u d g me n t w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . As no te d abo ve , a l th o ug h S oj k a co nc ede d tha t ther e i s no dispute ofm ate ri alf act on the ey ew eari ssue , hi s s ubm issi ons i n resp ons e to Bov is ’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t set out f acts thatsupport hi s theor y that B ov is w as n eg lige n t in p er m i t tin g w or k t o p ro c ee d in the firs t place

. The f acts , ta ken in the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o Soj ka, sho w th at B ovi s had autho ri ty to sto p w or k o n acco unt ofi ncl em ent weatherco nd itio ns, bu t it fai led to d o so even thou gh on th e d ay of S oj ka’s inj u ry th er e w er e h igh w in d s. Ina d d i t ion, evid en c e in th e r ec o r d s ho ws tha t S oj k a sh o ul d ha ve b ee n wo r k i ng w ith a m or e e x p er ien c ed ca rp en te r, r a th er th an on h is o w n, i n o r de rt o h e l p hi m be t t e rr e s po nd t o the wi nd y condi ti ons.N o. 11

- 2747 7 N one ofBovi s’ s a rgum en ts in i ts re plyto thes e f acts c on vin c es u s t h at su m m ar y ju d g m en t w as ap p ro p riat e. B ov is re sp o n d e d to th e a lleg at ion th at it sh ou ld have sto pp ed w or k b y di sputi ng t h e assert i on that i t had fi na l au th ority to stop w ork i n inc lem en t w ea t h er. I ns tead , i t said, suc h d e cisions w ere the prod uc t of a “gr oup disc ussi on” m ade with the subco ntra cto r; they had to m ake a “unanim ous deci si on” about w hether w or k wo ul d pr o c e e d. Bu t e v e n i f thi s i s t r ue , i tdoes not show that Bovi s was pow er l ess to st op w or k that day. To the con trar y, a tr i ero ff act coul d find thati ts negativ e v ot e in th e c om m itt ee w ou ld h av e b l o c ke d a u n an im ou s d ec isio n t o p e r m it w or k t o go forw ar d . B ov is al so ar gues that Soj ka’ s s tat em en t off acts m i sco nstr ued th e u n d er lyin g d ep os itio n t es tim on y of Ja m es P ay n e, a co nc r et e su per i nt en den t wor k i ngwi thM cHughCo nstr ucti on ( Soj ka’ s dir ect em plo yer ) , about w hether Soj ka sh ou ld h av e b ee n w o r k i n g w ith a m or e e x p er ien c ed ca rp en te r. In B ov is’s vie w , Pa yn e’s t es tim on y d id no ta ddr e s s s a fe t y c o nd i t i o ns b uts i m pl y s t a t e d a tr uis m t h at one w oul d w ant a l lthe hel p one c oul d get i n w i nd y c ondit ion s. B ut thati s no t a n accur ate po r tr ay alo fPa y ne ’ s depo si ti o n. Pa y ne was t o l d abo ut th e wea th erc o ndi ti o ns o n the da y o fthe a cc i den t an d tol d that So j ka had been work i ng al one. H e was the n as k ed, “ [ G] i ve n [ S oj k a’ s] l ev el ofe xpe r i en ce , i s [ wor k i ng al one] a safe pr acti ce o n this p roj ect i n yo ur o pini on?” Pa y ne ’ s resp onse : “ N o , i t i s no t sa fe. Imeans o m eo ne s ho ul d h a v e stay e d the r e a nd h e l pe d h i m. . . . S o meb o dy h ad to be th er e w ith h im .” H e w as th en sp ec i f i c a lly ask ed w h et h er thatper son shoul d have be en “a j ourne y-8 N o. 11

- 2747

manwi th e xp e r i e nc e i n doi ngtha two r k ” a nd a ns we r e d,

“ Ye s . ” T hi s u nd e r l y i ngde po s i t i o n t e s t i mon y thus s up port s S oj ka’ s s tat em ent o ff acts
. The r e was no r ea so n t o g r an t su m m ary j udg m en t sim p ly b ec au se Sojka inc lu d ed th e s e fa c ts in h is Rul e 56.1 s ta te m en t r athe rtha n in h i s ac co m pan y i ng m emor an dum o fl aw. Rul e 56
. 1 i s a l o ca lr ul e i n the N or ther n D i str i ct o fI l l i noi s that s up ple m ents Feder al R ule of CivilProced ure 56, w hich govern s su m m ary j ud gm ent. ( I t i s no tabl e in thi s co nnecti on that Rul e 5 6 i tse l f, parti cul ar l y a s a m ended in 2010 a n d t hus as w ord ed on M ay 27, 2011, th e d ate of the d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ng, d oe s no t r equi re the f acts o r l ega lar gum ents to ap p ea r inan y p ar tic u lar d oc u m en t. Se e R u le 5 6(c )(1) .) Lo ca l Rul e 56
. 1 “r equi r es spe ci fi ca l l y th at a li tig an t see ki ng to o pp ose a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent fi l e a r es po ns e th atc o nt ains a s epa r at e ‘ st at ement
. . . ofa ny add i tion al f acts thatr equi re the denia lo fsum m ar y j ud gm ent. ’ ” Ci c ho n v . Ex e l on Ge n e r at i on Co
. , L
. L
. C. , 4 01 F. 3d 80 3, 80 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). “T h e o b liga tio n se t fo rt h in L ocal Ru le 56. 1 ‘i s not a m ere form ali ty.’ Rat he r, ‘[ i] t f ol l ows f ro m the obl i gat i on i m po sed byF ED . R. C IV . P. 56 ( e) o n the part y o pp osing sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o i denti fy s peci fi c f acts thates tabl i sh a genui ne i ssue for tr i al

. ’ ” D e l apaz v. Ri ch ar ds on , 634 F.3d 895 , 89 9 ( 7th Cir. 2 0 1 1 ) ( qu o t i ng Wa ldridge v . Am erica n H o ech st C o rp . , 24 F.3d 918 , 924 (7th C ir. 1994)). Forl i ti gants appearing i n the N or ther n Dis tr ict of I l l i no i s , the R ul e 5 6
. 1 s t a t e men ti s a c r i t i c a l, and r e qu i r e d, c o mp o n e n to fa l i t i g a n t ’ s r e s po n s e t o a mo t i o n f o rs u m-N o. 11

- 2747 9

m ar y j ud gm ent. The purpose of t h e local r ule i s t o m ake the s um m ar y j ud gm ent pr oce ss l ess burdensom e o n d i s t r i c tc o u r t s , b y r e q u i r i n gth e p a r t i e s t o n a i ld o wn th e relevantf acts and the w ay th ey p rop ose to su p p ort the m. A l i t i g a ntn e e d n o ts e to utthe s a me f a c t s twice , how eve r, i n both the sta tem ent o ff acts a nd accom p an yin g m em or andu m o fl aw , i n or der t o m eeti ts burden to s h ow t hat a di spute o ff act re m ai ns. That w oul d m ake the sum m ar y j ud gm ent pr oce ss m or e, not l ess , cum ber som e. M or eo ver, a partysho uld notbe f aul t e d fo rf o l l o wi ngthe r ul e s a nd p r e s e nt i ngma t e r i al facts in its Ru le 5 6.1 statem en t. T he l ocal rules “w ere not i ntende d t o provi de a m aze ofte chnic altr aps to co m p li cate a nd de l ayl i ti g at i o n wi th o uta dva nc i ngthe m er i ts. ” St e vo v . Fras or, 662 F.3d 880 , 887 (7th C ir. 2011). I n h i s m o ti o n t o r ec o ns i der, S oj k a ex pl i ci tly po i nt ed o ut to the di st r i ctc o ur t th athi s Rul e 56
. 1 st at ementc o nta i ne d f ac ts s uppo r tinghi s addi ti o na lthe o r i es o fb r ea ch

. At tha t st ag e, o urr ev i ew i s o nl y f o rabus e o fdi scr et i o n, but we thi nk tha t the di str i ct c ourtwent too far wh en i t r efus ed to c o ns i der S oj k a’ s f ac ts whenthe y wer e ex pli ci tl y b ro ught t o i ts att enti on . In its r ej ecti on o f S oj k a ’ s m oti o n t o r e c o ns i de r, the c o ur tc i t e d Har ney v . Spe e dway S upe rAm e r i ca LL C, 526 F.3d 1 0 9 9, 1104 ( 7th Cir. 20 08) , f o rthe pr o po si ti o n tha t pr es en tingf ac ts , wi th o ut ar guing how they ar e r el evant, i s insuffi ci ent. But that re adingo ver sta tes Ha rney and dis counts the i m port ance of a R u le 56. 1 s tat em ent o ff acts to the sum m ar y j ud gme n tp r o c e s s . In Ha rney, we hel d onl y that “ [ i ] t i s no t the du t y o fthe c o ur tt o s c o urthe r e co r d inse ar c h of ev id en ce to d efeata m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t; rath er,10 N o. 11

- 2747 th e n on m ov in g p ar ty be ar s t h e r e s p on sib ility of id en tifyi ng the ev i dence upon w hi ch he r el i es . ” Id. (em p h as is adde d)

. S oj k a di d no t m ak e th e d ist r i ctc o ur t sc o ur th e re c or d ; he follow ed R u le 5 6.1 an d t h e p rin c ip le in Ha rney an d br o ug ht to th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s at te nt i on the evi dence i n t h e re cor d supp or ti ng hi s o pp osi ti on t o sum m ar y j ud gm ent. H i s m em or andu m o fl aw al so re fer re d, i n gener al ter m s, to the exi ste nce ofad d i ti onal th eo r i es o fb r ea chtha t went“ wel lb ey o nd the i ss ue of s afe ty gla ss es .” T ha t is not to say that S oj ka’s resp ons e to Bov is’ s m otion for su m m ary ju d g m en t w as by an y m easu re id ea l. It w ou ld h av e b ee nm u c h be tt e r f o r Soj ka to ca ll the c ourt ’ s a tte nti on m or e co ncre tel y t o hi s a dd i ti onal th e o r i e s i nth e a c c o mp a n y i n gl e g a lme mo r a n d u m, r a th e rth a n r e l y i ng j u s to n h i s s t a t e me n to ff a c t s . He coul d hav e incl ud ed a s epara te ar gum ent s ecti on, f or exam ple , thatspel l ed out w hy sum m ar y j ud gm ent was i napp ropri ate bec ause ofthe disputes o ff act ove r B ovis’s abili ty to stop w ork in high w ind s an d So jka’s need to work w i th exper i enced superv i si on. S oj ka’ s a tt o r n e y s f a i l e d t o d o s o , i ts e e ms , b e c a u s e th e y w e r e o per ating o n t he as sum pti on that they di d not nee d to m enti on any of these other th eor i es at all

— w h et h er in th e m em or andu m o r the s tat em ent o ff acts

— g i ven that Bovi s had f ocuse d onl y o n eye w ear . S ojka ’ s a tto rn ey s c on te n d th at d es p ite t h e fac t B ov is s aid th at it w as see ki ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent of the ent i re cas e, it seem ed that i n reality i t w as m oving for parti al s u mm ar y jud gm en t b ec au se Sojka h a d p re se n te d m u ltip le reaso ns to fi nd negl i gence

— o ne f o re a c h o fh i s the o ri esN o. 11

- 2747 11 ofbr each

— and Bovi s di scusse d onl y o ne o ftho se theo ri es, abou t eyew ear. That view is untenabl e. Bovi s di d not m ove f or“par ti al su m m ar y jud gm en t” on an as p ec t o ft h e c as e; B ov is m o ve d f o rs um m ary j udg m en t se eki ngdi smi ss alo fthe en ti r e su i t. And des pi te c o uns el s’ pr o te st at i o ns , S oj ka’s com pla i nt co ntai ns o ne co unt and one c l ai m , co nstr uctio n n eg lige n c e, co m m itt ed in a v a r i et y of w ay s. A “cl ai m i s ‘ the a ggr ega te of op erati ve f acts wh i ch gi ve ri se to a ri ght enf or ceabl e i n th e c ou rts. ’ ” Fl ore k v. Village of M undele in , 64 9 F
. 3d 594, 59 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( quoti ng O rigin a l B a llet R usse v. B a llet Thea tre, 133 F. 2d 187, 18 9 (2 d C ir. 19 4 3 )). O n e c laim su p p or te d by m u ltip le theo ri es d oes notso m ehow becom e m ult i ple cl ai m s. S ee id

. ( Fou rth A m en d m en t clai m of un reason able seizure w as one cl ai m , ev en if pla i nti ffhad m ult i ple theo ri es of w hy seizure w as u nrea son able). L u c kily , Sojka’s at to rn ey s d id n o t res t e x c lu siv ely on thei r er ro ne ou s v i ew o fthe proce edi ngs. They a l so re fer re d to th e ad d itio n al th eo rie s of b re ac h in th eir m em or andu m , and th ey supporte d thi s r efer ence w i th f a c t s i n th e a c c o mp a n y i n gR u l e 5 6
. 1 s t a t e me n t
. C o mbi ned, thi s was suffi ci ent t o defe at sum m ar y j ud gm ent. At o r ala r g um en t, Bo vi s’ s at to r ne y r ai sed the po i nt th at the r eco rd does notes tabl i sh thatthe w i nd was act u ally unsafe o n the day o fS oj ka’ s inj ury. Bovi s had apparentl y s et a threshol d safetyl eve lo f25 m i l es per ho urf o rwi nd , a nd S oj k a ’ s o wn met e o r o l o g i s te s ti m ate d th atthe wi nds tha t daywer e 22 mil es pe rho uri n the ar ea i n w hi ch Soj ka w as w or ki ng. But Bovi s co nced ed12 N o. 11

- 2747 that these f acts were not prese nted in its sum m ar y j ud gm en tfi l i ng s . I fBo v i s b e l i e v e d tha tthi s f a c tp r e c l ud ed su m m ary j ud gm en t, it w as B ov is ’s burd en to “poin t[] out to the di str i ct c ourt
. . . thatthe re is a n absence of evi dence to support the no nm oving par ty’ s ca se. ” C e l o tex C orp. v. Ca tret t, 47 7 U.S
. 31 7, 32 3 ( 1986 )
. Bovi s di d not m en tio n w in d sp ee d sp ec ifica lly, n or d id it st at e in gener alte rm s that the co nd i ti ons that day were safe. Even i fi t had, further m or e, we do not beli eve that B ov is c ou ld h av e w on su m m ar y jud gm en t b as ed on th is ev id en c e. A ju ry co u ld st ill fin d , ba se d on P ay n e’s te st im o ny a m o ngo th erthi ng s, tha t th e ac tu alc o ndi ti o ns w er e unsafe where Soj ka w as w or king

. Cf. M e s m an v. Cran ePr o S e r vs . , 40 9 F
. 3d 846, 85 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( sa fety s ta nda r d e vi den ce “ o r di na r i l y woul d b e r el ev an t though no t co ncl usi ve”) ; se e a l so Jab l ons kiv. Fo rd M ot or Co. , 955 N
. E
. 2d 1138 (I ll

. 2011) (sam e un d er I ll inois l aw ).

III Se eking to pre ser ve i ts gr ant o fsum m ar y j u dgm ent, Bovi s a l so ar gues that w e s houl d rev er se the di str i ct cour t’ s dete rm i nati on that i t o w ed a duty o fcar e t o Soj ka i n the fi rs t pl ace. W e decl i ne to do s o. I n I l l i noi s, wh en a p roj ect m anage r l i ke Bovi s e ntrust s w or k t o an i nd ependent contract or

— he r e, M cHugh, Soj ka’ s e m plo yer

— th e pr oj ec t m an ag ero wes the c o ntr ac to r ’ s empl o y ee s a d ut y o fc ar e o nl y i fi t “r et ains the contr olo fany part ofthe w or k. ” M a dd en v . F.H . P a sch en , 916 N .E
. 2d 1203 , 12 18 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 09) ( quoti ng Re-N o. 11

- 2747 13 sta tem ent ( Se cond) ofTor ts § 41 4)
. There i s no di spute th at B ov is re ta in ed a h igh d eg re e o f co n tr ol o v e r th is w orksite. Bu t i f t h e project m an ager ne ver en tru sts w ork to an ind ep en d en t c on tr ac to r i n t h e firs t p lac e, th en it does not m att eri fthe m anage r exer ci ses co ntro lo ver the wor ks i te
. Ev eni fi t do es , i t ca nno t be l i ab l e to the i nd ependent contr acto r’ s e m plo yee s. O ’ C o nn ell v. Turn er Cons t r . Co. , 949 N
. E
. 2d 1105, 1108 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2011). Bo vi s ar g ue s th at it n ev ere nt r us te d wor kt o M cHugh, because Bovi s never enter ed dir ectly i nto a c ontract wi thM cHugh

. Ins te ad, M cHughe nt er ed i nt o a c o ntr act w i th the o w ne r ofthe Tow er, and Bovi s s i gned the c ontr act as t h e ow ner’ s a gent. Bovi s thus ar gues th at, l i k e th e co ns truct i o n mana g eri n O’Co n n el l , it nev er en tr u st ed w or k t o a n ind ep en d en t c on tr ac to r. B u t B o v is ove rr eads O ’Co nnell . I n that case , the cour t co ncl ud ed that a proj ect m anage r did n ot entr ust workto a subco nt r ac to rb ecause it ha d no t “a ctua l l y s el ec te d the c o ntr acto rs o r subcontr acto rs , ” e ven though i t had hel ped th e si te ’ s o wneri n dr afti ngc o nt r ac ts a nd ha ndl i ngc o nst ru c tio n bid s. Id

. He r e , i n co nt r a s t, th e r e c o r d s h o ws th at Bovi s s el ecte d M cH ugh. Bovi s doe s no t e xplain w hy i t s houl d m att erthati t was te c h ni cal l y a cti ng as an age nt f orthe own erwh en i t m ade the sel ecti on. I t was thus corre ct forthe dist ri ct c ourtto co ncl ud e that B ovis had exerc ised su ff icien t con trol as th e ow ne r’s age nt i n sel ecting M cH u gh t o supp or t a fi nd i ng tha t B ov is h ad en tr u st ed w or k t o M c H u gh

. * * *14 N o. 11

- 2747 W e R EVER S E th e d istri ct cou rt’s grant of su m m ary j ud g men ta nd R EMA ND f o rfur th erpr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

7- 10- 12