The Law

Firm had Financial Stake (No Iron Stake) by Ron Davis A financial contractor for an Illinois shopping center has avoided sharing blame for an injury a customer suffered on center property. The shopping center is located in the Chicago area, and the customer had just arrived there when the accident occurred. The customer said that as she walked toward a center entrance, she fell after tripping over iron stakes that were driven into the asphalt surface. At the time of her visit to the center, an event was under way, and tents had been erected on a portion of center property. The tents were secured by those iron stakes. The customer’s fall resulted in various injuries, and she sued, claiming that those responsible for the location of the stakes knew or should have known that they posed an unreasonably dangerous condition for “invitees” to the property. Among those the customer sued was the financial contractor. But that contractor was merely an investment firm. And its role was mostly to provide “back-office” portfolio-level financial investment-management services. The firm neither owns nor manages the daily activities of real-estate properties. In reply to that argument, the injured woman noted that the contractor need not be the owner of the center property to be accountable for her injury. That’s because, she said, the contractor merely has to approve an activity there. And evidence did show that the contractor may have approved the event that was under way at the time of the accident. Moreover, the injured woman added, the contractor had ultimate control over which activities were permitted on the property. The contractor countered that argument by noting that center management certainly had not turned over “the entire charge” of the property to the contractor’s personnel. Instead, the contractor added, its purpose was merely to financially manage the assets of the premises. An Illinois court agreed with the contractor and dismissed the lawsuit’s charges. The injured woman appealed that court’s decision. Under Illinois law, however, an independent contractor who is put in charge of property can be subject to the same liability for harm “caused to others upon or outside of the land.” That liability can occur “by failure to exercise reasonable care to maintain the land in safe repair as though he were the possessor of the land.” But an appellate court sided with the contractor, ruling that the injured woman “has not provided any evidence indicating that the contractor had ultimate control or intended to have ultimate control over the land at issue…. Accordingly, we find that the evidence presented…constituted affirmative matter that defeated the claim of negligence, and the motion to dismiss was properly granted.” (Grzelak v. Classic Midwest, Inc., 2013 WL 3486924 [Ill.App. 1 Dist.]) Decision: July 2013 Published: July 2013