Illinois Appellate Court Examines a Duty to Others in an Operating Room

The Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for a surgeon sued by an operating room nurse injured during surgery, holding that no duty was owed to a co-worker under the circumstances. Applying the traditional duty factors, the court found the injury was not foreseeable or likely and that imposing additional duties on surgeons during surgery would unduly burden patient care.

Quiroz v. Chicago Transit Authority: An Illinois Supreme Court Analysis Regarding the Duty of Care

In Quiroz v. Chicago Transit Authority, the Illinois Supreme Court considered if a landowner owes a duty of care to a trespasser in peril. Ricardo Quiroz died after entering a CTA subway tunnel, raising legal questions about landowner responsibilities. The ruling centered on whether the danger from a moving train was open and obvious, impacting the duty of care in Illinois. Explore the court’s reasoning and implications.

Seventh Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment for Construction Contractors, Finding No Duty Owed to Plaintiff

In Jeffords v. BP Products North America Inc., the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that no duty of care existed between the refinery owner, construction managers, and a crane operator injured on the job. Applying Indiana law, the court emphasized that contractual language and actual control over safety—not general involvement in a construction project—determine whether a duty arises. Because the relevant contracts mirrored those previously found insufficient to impose safety obligations, and because OSHA regulations did not expand common-law duties, the defendants were not liable as a matter of law.

Madison County Circuit Court Considers Question of Duty, Grants Defendant U.S. Steel Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Madison County Circuit Court granted U.S. Steel’s motion for summary judgment in a wrongful-death action alleging take-home asbestos exposure. Without deciding whether a premises owner owes a duty to the spouse of an independent contractor, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of asbestos exposure at U.S. Steel sites under the frequency, regularity, and proximity standard.