Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equip., LLC, 15-2393
| Decision Date | 07 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-2393,15-2393 |
| Citation | 839 F.3d 599 |
| Parties | Matthew Schaefer, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Andrew Gerard Toennies, Lashly & Baer, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Christopher D. Baucom, James Stockberger, Armstrong Teasdale, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant–Appellee Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC.
Stephen S. Weiss, Laura L. Milnichuk, David E. Schroeder, Tribler Orpett & Meyer, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee Brand Energy Services, LLC.
Sean Malone Sullivan, Daley Mohan Groble, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC.
Before Flaum and Ripple, Circuit Judges, and Peterson, District Judge.*
This diversity case requires us to review the district court's application of Illinois tort law, particularly concerning spoliation of evidence. Matthew Schaefer, a construction worker, alleges that he was seriously injured when a defective piece of scaffolding fell and struck him on the head. So, in addition to bringing a workers' compensation claim against his employer, Schaefer sued the scaffolding manufacturer, Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC. When he learned that the piece of scaffolding that hit him had been lost, he added claims for negligent spoliation of evidence against his employer, Brand Energy Services, LLC, and against Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, the company that had engaged Brand to build scaffolding at a Dynegy power plant. Schaefer also alleged claims for construction negligence and failure to warn against Dynegy. Schaefer's wife joined his claims for negligent spoliation and brought claims for loss of consortium against each of the defendants.
In a series of decisions, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. At the heart of the case is the missing piece of scaffolding, which had been lost while in Dynegy's possession, before anyone had tested it for defects. The district court held that without the missing piece, Schaefer could not prove his product liability claims against Universal. The district court also held that Dynegy was not liable for any defects or negligence in the construction of the scaffolding. We affirm these decisions.
But the district court also held that Schaefer and his wife could not prove their spoliation claims either, reasoning that because the Schaefers were unable to prove that the missing piece was in fact defective, they would be unable to prove that the loss of the piece caused them any damage. The district court here relied on an incorrect statement of Illinois spoliation law, which does not require a plaintiff to prove that he would have won his case but for the spoliation. A spoliation claim under Illinois law requires only that the plaintiff show a “reasonable probability” of success on the underlying suit. Because the Schaefers adduced evidence from which a jury could make this finding—the batch of scaffolding used on the Dynegy project had a large number of defective pieces—the grant of summary judgment on the spoliation claims was improper. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the spoliation claims against Brand and Dynegy.
Matthew Schaefer was an employee of Brand Energy Services, LLC, which had been engaged by Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, to erect scaffolding at a Dynegy power plant. Under its contract with Dynegy, Brand had complete and authoritative control over the scaffold construction. Ryan Wampler was Brand's project manager. Dynegy also had a safety manager at the power plant, Don Watson. Brand acquired the scaffold components from Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC, but Dynegy paid for the scaffolding and owned it.
The Universal scaffolding used a “cup-lock” system in which metal tabs on the horizontal bars, called “ears,” would fit into a cup attached to the vertical members. A second cup would be locked down onto the ears to hold the components in place. Brand workers had difficulties with the Universal scaffolding components because some of the bars were not the proper length and some had bent ears, and those faulty components would not readily lock into the cups. Eventually the problem became prevalent enough that Wampler had his crew inspect the new Universal components as they arrived and then mark and set aside the defective pieces.
At the time of Schaefer's accident, November 2008, Schaefer and other Brand employees, including Maynard Hudson, were assembling scaffolding. Schaefer was a level below Hudson. A laborer would hand Schaefer a piece of scaffolding, and Schaefer would hand it up to Hudson, who would assemble the pieces. Hudson placed a three-foot, six-inch horizontal bar in the cups; but when he placed the next bar, the three-foot, six-inch bar popped out of its cups, fell, and struck Schaefer on the head. Schaefer suffered serious injuries to his neck, back, shoulders, and arms.
Precisely what caused the bar to fall is sharply disputed. Neither Schaefer nor Hudson noticed any defects in the bars, although during the assembly process they did not have time to look carefully. Wampler investigated the accident, and he reported that Hudson had knocked the bar with his hip or tool bag; but Hudson denies this. Schaefer contends that the root cause was Universal's defective scaffolding, but proving that theory is problematic because of what happened to the bar.
Immediately after Schaefer's accident, Watson (Dynegy's safety manager) asked Wampler to retrieve the bar that struck Schaefer. Watson stored the bar in his office at the power plant. When he moved offices in December 2009, he left the bar behind, and it was eventually moved to a storage room in the power plant. The last time that anyone saw the bar was in September or October of 2010, when a safety worker saw it in the storage room. By November 2011, the first time that Schaefer sought to examine the bar as part of discovery in this case, it had been lost.
Schaefer filed a workers' compensation claim in March 2009. He filed a discovery action against Brand in Illinois state court in December 2009. Brand never responded to the suit or to Schaefer's interrogatories asking who had sold Brand the scaffolding used at the construction site and what the company had done with the scaffolding after finishing the project. Schaefer did not press the discovery action.
In June 2010, Schaefer and his wife, Cynthia, filed a complaint against Universal in state court, bringing claims for negligence, strict liability for product defect, strict liability for failure to warn, and loss of consortium. (Both Matthew and Cynthia Schaefer are plaintiffs and appellants, but for simplicity, we will refer to them collectively as “the Schaefers,” and we will refer to Matthew as “Schaefer.”) Universal removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity. Two amended complaints later, Schaefer had six causes of action under Illinois law: three against Universal for negligence (product liability), strict liability for product defect, and strict liability for failure to warn; two against Dynegy for negligence and negligent spoliation; and one against Brand for negligent spoliation. Schaefer's wife also brought three claims of her own: one against Dynegy for negligent spoliation; one against Brand for negligent spoliation; and one against all defendants for loss of consortium.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in a series of decisions issued over the course of two years. In June 2013, a now-retired district judge denied Brand's motion for summary judgment on the spoliation claim against it. In February 2014, the district judge who took over the case denied cross-motions from the Schaefers and from Brand and Dynegy for summary judgment on the spoliation claims, but he granted Universal's motion for summary judgment on all claims against it.
The parties then consented to have a magistrate judge preside over the remainder of the case (i.e., the claims against Dynegy and Brand). In January 2015, the magistrate judge granted Dynegy's motion for summary judgment on Schaefer's negligence claim against it. A month later, as the case neared trial on the remaining claims for spoliation and loss of consortium, the magistrate judge granted Brand and Dynegy's joint motion in limine to exclude all evidence and testimony that the missing scaffolding bar was defective. At the magistrate judge's invitation, Brand and Dynegy renewed their motions for summary judgment on the spoliation and loss of consortium claims. The magistrate judge granted Brand and Dynegy's renewed motion and the case was over. This appeal followed.
The Schaefers contend that the district court erred in entering summary judgment on each of their claims. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in the light most favorable to the Schaefers. Carson v. ALL Erection & Crane Rental Corp. , 811 F.3d 993, 995 (7th Cir. 2016). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
We begin with Schaefer's product liability claims against Universal. Relying on Shramek v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Motor Division , 69 Ill.App.2d 72, 216 N.E.2d 244 (1966), and its progeny, the district court concluded that product liability claims fail under Illinois law when the plaintiff does not present the allegedly defective product itself, or at least other admissible evidence that the product was defective. On appeal, Schaefer contends that the district court erred in concluding that he lacked evidence that the bar was defective. We disagree.
Under Illinois law, plaintiffs in product liability actions “must identify the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor v. Ford Motor Co.
...briefs, as perfunctory and undeveloped arguments and arguments made only in footnotes are waived. See Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC , 839 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2016) ; Vulcan Golf , 552 F. Supp. 2d at 765 n. 6.1. Fraud As noted above, Rule 9(b) requires Plaintiffs to ......
-
Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.
...See supra § II.A. Additionally, "perfunctory and undeveloped legal arguments are waived." Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equip., LLC , 839 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2016) (published opinion); see also United States v. Alden , 527 F.3d 653, 664 (7th Cir. 2008) ; United States v. Key , No.......
-
Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC (In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig.)
...that courts should not examine foreclosure in the aggregate among defendants. See, e.g. , See Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equip., LLC , 839 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2016) ("Perfunctory and undeveloped legal arguments are waived, as are arguments unsupported by legal authority."). In ......
-
Moorer v. Valkner
...related and it was foreseeable that the evidence would be used in future litigation. See Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equip., LLC, 839 F.3d 599, 609 (7th Cir. 2016). Moorer argues that McDermott owed him a duty to preserve evidence because proper police practices required detectives ......
-
Dear Ms. Councilwoman, "What Can You Do About Uber in the City?": The Role of Local Governments in the Post-Regulatory Landscape of Transportation Network Companies.
...classifications or regulatory schemes presumed valid due to minimal rational basis review). (173.) See Ill. Transp. Trade Ass 'n, 839 F.3d at 599 (concluding legislature by creating statutory regime therefore not precluded from amending it); Progressive Credit Union, 889 F.3d at 51 (explain......