Woods v. North Pier Terminal Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-56,84-56
• Parties: , 86 Ill.Dec. 354 Timothy WOODS and Helen Woods, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORTH PIER TERMINAL CO., a corporation, City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, and Public Building Commission of Chicago, a municipal corporation, Defendants, North Pier Terminal Co., a corporation, Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 568

475 N.E.2d 568

131 Ill.App.3d 21, 86 Ill.Dec. 354

Timothy WOODS and Helen Woods, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORTH PIER TERMINAL CO., a corporation, City of Chicago, a

municipal corporation, and Public Building

Commission of Chicago, a municipal

corporation, Defendants,

North Pier Terminal Co., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 84-56.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Fourth Division.

Feb. 7, 1985.

Ernest T. Rossiello, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Schaffenegger, Watson & Peterson, Ltd., Chicago (Jay S. Nelson, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

ROMITI, Justice:

Timothy Woods (Woods) appeals from the order of the Cook County circuit court which entered summary judgment in favor of North Pier Terminal Co., Inc. (North Pier). Woods had filed suit against North Pier to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained while employed at Navy Pier, which Woods claimed North Pier leased, maintained, or otherwise controlled pursuant to a lease agreement with the city of Chicago. The sole issue presented for our review is whether North Pier's agreement with Woods' employer, Ceres, Inc. (Ceres) to assign North Pier's lease of Navy Pier to Ceres was valid where the city of Chicago never formally consented to the assignment although consent was required under the terms of the lease.

We affirm.

Woods' complaint alleged that he was injured on June 13, 1977 while employed by Ceres as a longshoreman at Navy Pier, when he slipped and fell on an oil slick in a warehouse at the pier. He alleged that the premises were leased, operated, supervised, managed, maintained or otherwise controlled by North Pier at the time of his injury because of North Pier's agreement with the city of Chicago to lease the property. This agreement was dated May 5, 1976. By its terms, the period of the leasehold commenced January 1, 1976 and terminated December 31, 1978. The lease provided in pertinent part that North Pier could assign its interest only upon approval from the city of Chicago. Article II of the agreement specifically stated in relevant part:

"The tenant shall not, without prior approval of Landlord, assign or transfer this agreement nor any share, part or interest therein, or any of the rights or privileges granted hereby, nor enter into any contract requiring or permitting the doing of anything hereunder by an independent contractor unless otherwise expressly provided herein. Tenant further agrees that it shall not enter into agreements of any nature, formal or informal, concerning other business or corporation without prior approval of Landlord * * *."

The lease further obligated North Pier to maintain the premises in safe condition and reasonable repair and required it to obtain specified types of insurance coverage in case of property damage or personal injury.

North Pier's motion for summary judgment contended that an effective assignment of this lease to Ceres had occurred prior to Woods' injuries. In support, North Pier presented an assignment agreement between it and Ceres dated February 1, 1977; correspondence from the Commissioner of Public Works of the city of Chicago to North Pier dated April 4, 1977 which expressed its intent to consent to the assignment to Ceres; and a resolution of the Chicago City Council dated August 1, 1977 which authorized the commissioner of Public Works to execute on behalf of the city of Chicago a consent to the assignment agreement between North Pier and Ceres.

Although consent was thereby authorized, no formal instrument was ever executed by the commissioner of Public Works or any other authorized governmental official.

Based upon the parties' pleadings, documents, and written and oral argument, the trial court found that North Pier had assigned its leasehold interest to Ceres and was therefore not liable for Woods' alleged injuries. It entered summary judgment in favor of North Pier accordingly. Woods' timely appeal followed.

Woods argues on appeal that summary judgment was improperly granted here because the facts do not establish North Pier's valid and effective assignment of its lease to Ceres. He initially claims that the purported assignment was a nullity because it did...