SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES RESTATEMENT SECOND 414 RETAINED CONTROL CLAIMS FROM VICARIOUS LIABILITY CLAIMS
Patrick Joseph Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2016 Ill. 118984, 77 N.E. 3rd 1 (2017) has flown under the radar. This case significantly clarifies what most additional insured endorsements will cover in a work site accident case. Most additional insured endorsements cover various liability claims but not direct negligence claims. Carney holds there is a difference between a vicarious liability claim and a claim under §414 of the Second Restatement of Torts.
Under a typical §414 claim, the injured party alleges the general contractor controlled the means, manner and method of work. Carney holds a § 414 claim is a claim of direct negligence against a party – here the owner of the bridge which was to be demolished. The court went on to state a §414 claim takes over after vicarious liability. Thus most, if not all, §414 claims will not be covered by additional insured endorsements.
- by Emily Flores
- posted at 11:32 AM