In this case there is evidence that defendant's maintenance supervisor was involved; he showed plaintiff and other Honeywell employees how to get to the roof by using defendant's ladder, which he had control of. Defendant also cites Egizio v. Majetich (1988), 172 Ill. App.3d 758. In Egizio, the Appellate Court for the Third District upheld the trial court's summary judgment order against plaintiff, holding that the defendant homeowners were not in charge of work done by plaintiff who fell from a ladder while remodeling defendants' house.
• 3 The factors to consider whether an owner of property is in charge include, but are not limited to, whether the owner: (1) supervised and controlled the work; (2) retained the right to supervise and control the work; (3) constantly participated in the ongoing activities at the construction site; (4) supervised and coordinated the subcontractors; (5) took responsibility for safety precautions at the jobsite; (6) had authority to issue change orders; (7) had the right to stop the work; (8) owned the equipment at the work site; (9) was familiar with construction customs and practices; and (10) was in a position to insure worker safety or alleviate equipment deficiencies or improper work habits. Egizio v. Majetich (1988), 172 Ill. App.3d 758, 527 N.E.2d 13. The defendant has cited five cases in support of its position, and we will discuss them in order.
Regarding plaintiff's Structural Work Act claims, we note that when presented with a variety of factual scenarios and procedural situations, Illinois courts have been reluctant to hold homeowners liable for workers' injuries sustained during repairs and reconstruction. (See Egizio v. Majetich (1988), 172 Ill. App.3d 758 (summary judgment for defendants affirmed); Gentile v. Kehe (1987), 165 Ill. App.3d 802 (summary judgment for defendant affirmed); Lyle v. Sester (1981), 103 Ill. App.3d 208 (judgment for plaintiff reversed); Winter v. Davis (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 912 (directed verdict for defendants affirmed); Di Prima v. Edwards (1977), 55 Ill. App.3d 633 (summary judgment for defendants affirmed).) These courts have based these decisions upon the concern that finding the defendants liable would "place an unreasonable burden on all homeowners who contract for improvements on their homes."
Accordingly, the trial court properly granted defendants' summary judgment regarding count I. To impose liability under the instant record "would be to place an unreasonable burden on all homeowners who contract for improvements on their homes." Egizio v. Majetich (1988), 172 Ill. App.3d 758, 762. Plaintiff's other argument is that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on count II (negligence).