Clifford v. Wharton Business Group, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• sections 414 and 343 are not mutually exclusive; rather, each one offers an independent basis for recovery
• it was reasonably foreseeable to contractor that worker would be distracted from and injured by opening in floor near area where he was assigned to work on contractor's project
• “[S]ections 343 and 414 [of the Second Restatement] are not mutually exclusive; rather, each one offers an independent basis for recovery.”
• proof not required that possessor of land created or had control over distraction, nor is proof required that hazardous condition was created by possessor of land
• it was reasonably foreseeable to contractor that worker would be distracted from and injured by opening in floor near area where he was assigned to work on contractor’s project
• plaintiffs’ “argument, *** not raised in the trial court in plaintiffs’ response to the motion for summary judgment,” is forfeited (citing Ray v. City of Chicago, 19 Ill. 2d 593 (1960

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).