Amusement Park Not Liable to Contractor’s Injured Worker Because No Retained Control Over Contractor’s Work

In March 2008, an employee of a construction contractor for an amusement park fell to his death while dismantling a large log flume-style ride.  The worker’s estate sued the amusement park alleging multiple counts of negligence.  As is generally true in all states, one who employees an independent contractor in Illinois is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor subject to certain exceptions.  Illinois recognizes the “retained control” exception providing that one who entrusts work to an independent contractor but retains control of the work can be subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, when there is a failure to exercise control with reasonable care.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the amusement park on the grounds that it did not retain control of the independent contractor’s work to the extent necessary for the retained control exception to apply.  On Friday, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division affirmed after examining the alleged contractual, supervisory, and operational control exerted by the amusement park over the contractor’s work.  The court explained that even though the contractor had to comply with the amusement park’s safety program and attend the park’s general safety orientation, such requirements must sufficiently affect a contractor’s means and methods of doing its work to bring the employer within the ambit of the retained control exception.  In this case, the safety guidelines imposed by the park did not differ from the contractor’s own safety standards and none of the park-imposed requirements changed the way the contractor performed its work.  Similarly, even though the park’s employees could intervene in the contractor’s work if they observed unsafe working conditions, the record showed that the park’s employees’ involvement in the contractor’s work was limited “almost exclusively to monitoring” the progress of the contractor’s job and did not include supervising the manner in which the work was being performed.  Accordingly, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the estate had not established a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that the amusement park retained enough control over the contractor’s work to have a legal duty toward the deceased worker.