344 Ill. App. 3d 772 - Moss v. Rowe Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The party who retains control is the logical party upon whom to impose a duty to ensure worker safety. Penalizing a general contractor’s efforts to promote safety and coordinate a general safety program among various independent contractors at a large jobsite hardly serves to advance the goal of work site safety. A party who retains some control over the safety of the work has a duty to exercise that control with ordinary care. Nevertheless, the existence of a safety program, safety manual or safety director does not constitute retained control per se; the court must still conduct an analysis pursuant to the section 414 retained control exception. We recognize, of course, that if a defendant’s safety program sufficiently affected a contractor’s means and methods of doing its work, then such program could bring the defendant within the ambit of the retained control exception.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 381 Ill. App. 3d 18 - Jones v. DHR Cambridge Homes, Inc. · 474 F. Supp. 2d 961 - Avalos v. Pulte Home Corp.

2. ““ ‘Article VIII. Safety: Accident Prevention: 1. In the performance of this contract the contractor shall comply with all applicable [flederal, [s]tate, and local laws governing safety, health, and sanitation (23 CFR [§] 635). The contractor shall provide all safeguards, safety devices[,] and protective equipment and take any other needed actions as it determines, or as the SHA [State Highway Agency] contracting officer may determine to be reasonably necessary to protect the life and health of employees on the job and the safety of the public and to protect properly in connection with the performance of the work covered by the contract. 2. It is a condition of this contract, and shall be made a condition of each subcontract, which the contractor enters into pursuant to this contract, that the contractor and any subcontractor shall not permit any employee, in performance of the contract, to work in surroundings or under conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous!!,] or dangerous to his/her health or safety, as determined under construction safety and health standards (29 CFR [§] 1926) promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. [§] 333).’ ‘The contractor shall furnish (a) a competent superintendent or supervisor who is employed by the firm, has full authority to direct performance of the work in accordance with the contract requirements, and is in charge of all construction operations (reg”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 358 Ill. App. 3d 865 - Cochran v. George Sollitt Construction Co.

3. ““In order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, the employer must have retained at least some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, *** to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414, Comment c, at 388.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 359 Ill. App. 3d 684 - Doe v. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America