In a construction negligence and premises liability lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged the general contractor owed a duty of care to him, an employee of a subcontractor. Plaintiff was injured when an underground trench, dug out by the subcontractor, collapsed on him. The subcontractor dug the trench out the same afternoon of the accident and did not use any type of trench shoring to support the sides of the trench. The plaintiff alleged the general contractor controlled operative details of the subcontractor’s work and had notice of the condition in the trench as the general contractor was on site at the time of the collapse. The general contractor, Abbey Paving, argued it owed no duty as it did not have sufficient control over the operative details of the subcontractor’s work. Further, they argued that a general supervisory right as general contractor over the job site did not rise to the necessary control to establish a duty. Abbey Paving further argued it had no duty under a theory of premises liability because it did not have actual or constructive notice of the unsupported trench. The Second District Appellate Court agreed and found there was no issue of fact and affirmed summary judgment after oral argument.
The opinion was published and can be found at Neisendorf v. Abbey Paving & Sealcoating Company, Inc., 2024 IL App (2d) 230209 (2024 WL 3419680).