Bear v. Power Air, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Evans v. Lima Lima Flight Team, Inc.

    373 Ill. App. 3d 407 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 72 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reviewing court may affirm the circuit court's judgment on any basis supported by the record

    The plaintiff argues that referencing the inherent dangers of formation flying demonstrates that the exculpatory agreement does not apply to negligent conduct. Citing to Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill. App. 3d 403, 595 N.E.2d 77 (1992), the plaintiff contends that "inherently dangerous" only refers to "that type of danger which inheres in the instrumentality or the condition itself at all times thereby requiring special precautions to be taken with regard to it to prevent injury and does not mean danger which arises from mere casual negligence with regard to it under the particular circumstances." (Emphasis added.)

  2. Jones v. Beker

    260 Ill. App. 3d 481 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 26 times

    We also find that defendants exercised reasonable care in their selection of Condor Recovery as its repossessor. ( Bear v. Power Air, Inc. (1992), 230 Ill. App.3d 403, 408, 595 N.E.2d 77.) To show that an employer failed to exercise reasonable care in the selection of an independent contractor, a plaintiff must show that the defendant negligently hired an independent contractor that it knew or should have known was unfit for the job so as to create a danger of harm to the plaintiff.

  3. Schmit v. Metcalf

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 151040 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    ΒΆ 29 "If one employs [an independent contractor] to do work which he should recognize as involving some peculiar risk to others unless special precautions are taken, the one doing the employing will remain liable if harm results because these precautions are not taken." Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill. App. 3d 403, 409 (1992). " '[T]he proper test to be applied concerning the liability of an owner for the act of negligence of an independent contractor is whether there was sufficient evidence presented so that the trier of fact could determine that the work to be done was a probable and foreseeable source of injury to a party such as plaintiff unless proper precautions were taken.

  4. Schmit v. Metcalf

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 151040 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    ΒΆ 29 "If one employs [an independent contractor] to do work which he should recognize as involving some peculiar risk to others unless special precautions are taken, the one doing the employing will remain liable if harm results because these precautions are not taken." Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill. App. 3d 403, 409 (1992). " '[T]he proper test to be applied concerning the liability of an owner for the act of negligence of an independent contractor is whether there was sufficient evidence presented so that the trier of fact could determine that the work to be done was a probable and foreseeable source of injury to a party such as plaintiff unless proper precautions were taken.

  5. Lowe v. Brown

    896 F. Supp. 793 (N.D. Ill. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Id. Second, for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to succeed, it must be impossible for plaintiff to succeed, but there are factual scenarios under which a principal may be liable for the acts of its independent contractor. See Kouba v. East Joliet Bank, 135 Ill. App.3d 264, 89 Ill. Dec. 774, 777, 481 N.E.2d 325, 328 (1985) (failure to use reasonable care in selection); Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill. App.3d 403, 172 Ill. Dec. 14, 19, 595 N.E.2d 77, 82 (inherently dangerous risks), appeal denied, 146 Ill.2d 622, 176 Ill. Dec. 792, 602 N.E.2d 446 (1992). Accordingly, the case must proceed further.

  6. McKenna v. Alliedbarton Sec. Servs., LLC

    2015 Ill. App. 133414 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    To determine whether a defendant owes a duty of care to protect a potential plaintiff, the court analyzes several criteria, including the foreseeability of harm. Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill.App.3d 403, 408, 172 Ill.Dec. 14, 595 N.E.2d 77 (1992). In a premises liability case such as this, there is generally no duty on the part of a landowner to protect against the criminal acts of a third party, like the gunman in this case.

  7. McKenna v. AlliedBarton Sec. Servs., LLC

    2015 Ill. App. 133414 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Peters v. Riggs, 2015 IL App (4th) 140043, ΒΆ 44. To determine whether a defendant owes a duty of care to protect a potential plaintiff, the court analyzes several criteria, including the foreseeability of harm. Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill. App. 3d 403, 408 (1992). In a premises liability case such as this, there is generally no duty on the part of a landowner to protect against the criminal acts of a third party, like the gunman in this case.

  8. Apostal v. Oliveri Construction Co.

    287 Ill. App. 3d 675 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    In Apostal v. Oliveri Construction Co., 287 Ill.App.3d 675, 222 Ill.Dec. 884, 678 N.E.2d 756 (1997), the plaintiff was identically situated to plaintiff here; he was an employee of a subcontractor, injured on the job, who sought to hold the premises owner liable in tort under various sections of the Restatement.

    The cases explain that when a principal contracts with an independent contractor for work that is dangerous or inherently dangerous, the principal has a nondelegable duty to take special precautions to guard against the peculiar risks attendant to that activity. Bear v. Power Air, Inc., 230 Ill. App.3d 403, 409, 595 N.E.2d 77, 81-82 (1992); Central Trust Savings Bank v. Toppert, 198 Ill. App.3d 562, 565-66, 554 N.E.2d 820, 823 (1990); Johnson v. Central Tile Terrazzo Co., 59 Ill. App.2d 262, 277, 207 N.E.2d 160, 167 (1965); Van Auken v. Barr, 270 Ill. App. 150, 153 (1933). This nondelegable duty, however, runs to third parties, not to employees of the independent contractor.