Skip to main content

Moss v. Rowe Construction Co.

Citations

  • 801 N.E.2d 612
  • 344 Ill. App. 3d 772
  • 279 Ill. Dec. 938

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that the construction company's contract with IDOT established a duty to control safety
  • stating that the construction company's contract with IDOT established a duty to control safety
  • relying exclusively on contract language and criticizing the Shaughnessy approach as mak ing “contractual obligations for safety a meaningless nullity”
  • “The issue is not control of the ‘means and methods’ of performing the task, but rather who contractually and/or physically has the duty to control safety of the project”
  • “The issue is not control of the ‘means and methods’ of performing the task, but rather who contractually and/or physically has the duty to control safety of the project”
  • defendant was subject to section 414 liability where improperly placed equipment contributed to the worker’s injury, contract terms limited the independent contractor’s options regarding the placement of equipment, and defendant retained substantial contractual control of safety

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Myerscough, Cook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Moss v. Rowe Construction Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.