Kobus v. Formfit Co.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39270,39270 |
| Citation | 221 N.E.2d 633,35 Ill.2d 533 |
| Parties | Bruno G. KOBUS, Appellant, v. The FORMFIT COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Norman Peters and John G. Phillips, Chicago (Sidney Z. Karasik, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann & Hoban, Chicago (John L. Kirkland and D. Kendall Griffith, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
Plaintiff, Bruno Kobus, filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly occasioned by a wilful violation of the Illinois Structural Work Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 48, pars, 60--69), commonly referred to as the Scaffold Act. The complaint joined as defendant The Formfit Company, owner of the premises where the construction and the alleged injuries occurred, C. W. Johnson, a heating contractor, and Roberts-Lang-Gray, Inc., a mason contractor. Summary judgments were entered for all defendants. Appeal was taken as to the owner of the premises only. The Appellate Court, First District, affirmed with one judge dissenting. Plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal to this court was granted.
The question in this case is whether, under the Scaffold Act, an owner of premises may be liable for injuries resulting in a fall from a scaffold which is unsafe where the owner did not himself erect the scaffold, but did act as his own general contractor on the project, engaged an architect who selected the various contractors and who co-ordinated the work being done, and by contract reserved the right to make alterations or corrections in the work and the right of supervision. This concerns specifically the meaning of section 9 of the act which provides liability of 'Any owner * * * having charge of' construction, repairing, alteration, removal or painting of any building or other structure.
Plaintiff contends that on owner of property who acts as his own general contractor, engages an architect to select the various contractors and subcontractors maintains liaison with such contractors through the architect, receives progress reports, reserves the right to make alterations or corrections in the work, and reserves all other powers of supervision, is 'in charge of the construction of the building' within the provisions of section 9 of the Scaffold Act and liable for an injury resulting from a scaffold which does not conform to the requirements of the act, even though such owner did not directly construct or supply the scaffold. He insists that the retention of 'the right to control' the construction project by the owner constitutes being 'in charge of' within the meaning of the statute.
Defendant contends that the right of control by the owner is not sufficient to create liability against an owner of the premises, nor to require submitting the question of liability to a jury. It urges that under the facts of this case the court properly granted a summary judgment in favor of defendant.
From the pleadings, depositions, and affidavit the following facts appear: Plaintiff, Kobus, a sheet metal worker, employed by Airway Heating & Ventilating Systems, Inc., the contractor who was installing the heating system in the building, fell from a scaffold while installing air ducts and sustained severe injuries. Defendant was the owner of the real estate at 5150 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, and was erecting an addition to its building on such property. Plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that defendant acted as its own general contractor, hired contractors and subcontractors to perform the work under its direction and control, and that it failed to provide proper safeguards and other protection in and around the scaffold, failed to provide safe supports for the scaffold, failed to erect and construct it in a safe, suitable and proper manner, permitted it to be in use while not constructed in a safe manner, and failed to provide guards or rails. Defendant's amended motion alleged it did not furnish or provide Airway with any material and did not furnish any ladders or scaffolds, did not supervise Airway's employees, and that the scaffold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crothers v. LaSalle Institute
...instructions, to make that determination." (22 Ill.2d 305, 323, 175 N.E.2d 785, 794.) Accordingly, mere ownership (Kobus v. Formfit Co. (1966), 35 Ill.2d 533, 221 N.E.2d 633) and actual exercise of supervision or control (Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 316, 211 N.E.2d 2......
-
Tenenbaum v. City of Chicago
...determination as to whether O'Neil was in charge of the work was an issue of fact for resolution by the jury. (Kobus v. Formfit Co., 35 Ill.2d 533, 537--538, 221 N.E.2d 633; Gannon v. C.M. St. P. & P. Ry. Co, 22 Ill.2d 305, 323, 175 N.E.2d 785). Whether or not a person is in charge of the w......
-
Allison v. Shell Oil Co.
...complaint only if Shell or Wuellner were actually at fault; the Act does not contemplate strict liability. Kobus v. Formfit Co. (1966), 35 Ill.2d 533, 537, 221 N.E.2d 633; Gannon v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Ry. Co. (1961), 22 Ill.2d 305, 319, 175 N.E.2d 785; see Rovekamp v. Ce......
-
Norton v. Wilbur Waggoner Equipment Rental and Excavating Co.
...was a question of fact for the jury to determine. This court has been consistent in its holdings to that effect. (Kobus v. Formfit Co. (1966), 35 Ill.2d 533, 221 N.E.2d 633; Voss v. Kingdon & Naven, Inc. (1975), 60 Ill.2d 520, 328 N.E.2d 297; McInerney v. Hasbrook Construction Co. (1975), 6......