Fitzpatrick v. Perry Drugs Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Block v. Lohan Associates, Inc.

    269 Ill. App. 3d 745 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 26 times
    In Block, the plaintiff was able to provide testimony from co-workers detailing the moments leading up to and within seconds after the decedent's fall. Secondly, plaintiff offered a reconstruction expert to opine how it was that the decedent fell, thus offering direct opinion testimony on the issue of proximate cause.

    Carrillo v. Pepper Construction Co. (1990), 201 Ill. App.3d 647, 648-50, 559 N.E.2d 191 (placement of an instrumentality may be a proximate cause of a worker being injured). Whether a defendant such as Pepper is in charge of the work in contemplation of the Act depends upon the totality of the circumstances, and one or more parties may be in charge of the work and be subject to liability under the Act for the same injury. ( Emberton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1978), 71 Ill.2d 111, 123, 373 N.E.2d 1348; Fitzpatrick v. Perry Drugs Co. (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 529, 532, 572 N.E.2d 1103.) It is unnecessary that a defendant be in direct charge of the particular operation from which the injury arose if it was in charge of the overall work for the project. Sasser v. Alfred Benesch Co. (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 445, 450, 576 N.E.2d 303; Kohutko v. Four Columns, Ltd. (1986), 148 Ill. App.3d 181, 186, 498 N.E.2d 522.