2019 IL App (1st) 181079-U No. 1-18-1079 Order filed December 12, 2019 Fourth Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ MICHAEL DEVER, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 15 L 11791 ) LEOPARDO COMPANIES, INC., PRECISION ) CEMENT COMPANY INC., K.R. MILLER ) CONTRATORS, INC., G & V CONSTRUCTION ) COMPANY, INC., DYNASTY PLUMBING GROUP, ) LLC, and POLI CONTRACTING, INC., ) ) Defendants ) Honorable ) John H. Ehrlich, (Poli Contracting, Inc., Defendant-Appellee). ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Reyes and Burke concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The defendant subcontractor plumber was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff, an ironworker who was injured at a construction site when his foot slid into a pipe trench, failed to present a factual basis that would arguably entitle him to a judgment where there was no genuine issue as to the material fact that No. 1-18-1079
the defendant did not work at the site before the plaintiff was injured and thus did not create the trench or install the pipe sleeve that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
¶2 In this interlocutory appeal from his personal injury cause of action, plaintiff Michael
Dever, an ironworker who was injured while working at a construction site, challenges the trial
court’s award of summary judgment in favor of defendant Poli Contracting, Inc. (Poli).
¶3 On appeal, plaintiff argues the record shows that a genuine issue of material fact exists
regarding whether Poli created the condition that caused plaintiff’s injury because some
deposition testimony conflicted with Poli’s assertion that it did not commence work at the
construction site prior to the date of plaintiff’s injury.
¶4 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 1
¶5 I. BACKGROUND
¶6 According to the pleadings, depositions and affidavits filed in this matter, plaintiff was
injured while working at a construction site at an elementary school. The construction project
was divided into two phases. During the first phase, which generally involved building the
foundation and installing a perimeter fence, grade beams and caissons, 2 Leopardo Companies,
Inc. (Leopardo) was the general contractor. During the second phase, which generally involved
the construction of a building on the foundation, K.R. Miller Contractors, Inc. (K.R. Miller) was
the general contractor, its project manager was Derek Taylor, and its general superintendent was
Paul Ingraham.
1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order. 2 A grade beam is “a sill of structural steel or reinforced concrete atop the foundation of a building and supporting a wall at or near ground level.” A caisson is “a watertight chamber used in construction work under water or as a foundation. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com (2019).
-2- No. 1-18-1079
¶7 Plaintiff’s injury occurred during the project’s second phase. At that time, K.R. Miller
had subcontracted with Dynasty Plumbing Group, LLC (Dynasty) to do the plumbing work at
the site. Dynasty’s vice president was Dan Humphries. Dynasty had subcontracted with Poli, a
sole proprietorship, to do plumbing-related site work that involved digging trenches for the
placement of water main pipes and then backfilling the trenches.
¶8 Plaintiff was employed as an ironworker by subcontractor M.A. Steel Erectors, Inc., to
install rebar and grade beam. According to his deposition, when his injury occurred in January
2014, the temperature was below freezing and there were mounds of snow and ice on the ground
at the work site. The ironworkers did not have a clean and level lay-down area for the rebar
because the ground was uneven and rocky and contained holes or trenches that were not
backfilled. Plaintiff described the work conditions at the site as “ugly” and “unsafe” but, “to get
the job done,” the ironworkers “had to do what [they] had to do.”
¶9 Plaintiff observed only one pipe trench in his work area at the site. The pipe trench was
about two feet deep and was not backfilled or “sectioned off” with “barriers.” The work area also
had a grade beam trench, which was about four feet below street grade level and did not have
any ladders. As an ironworker, plaintiff would jump in and crawl out of the grade beam trench
several times a day.
¶ 10 On January 9, 2014, plaintiff and two other ironworkers went to the staging area and
picked up a 40-foot piece of rebar, which weighed about 160 pounds and had “hooks,” i.e., bent
“L” shapes, on each end. As they carried the rebar on their shoulders, they walked by the pipe
trench and toward the rebar installation location. They had walked only about eight feet when the
hook at the front end of the rebar either hit or snagged something, causing plaintiff, who was at
-3- No. 1-18-1079
the rear, to lose his balance. He stepped to his left to regain his balance and his left foot slid
down into the pipe trench and contacted a black pipe sleeve that was in the trench. Then his left
foot slid off the pipe sleeve and became wedged in a crevice between the pipe sleeve and the
ground. Plaintiff was still carrying his end of the rebar as he pulled himself out of the trench.
Despite the pain he felt in his leg, hip and buttock area, he continued working that day and the
next day to finish the job. Thereafter, his condition worsened, and he sought medical treatment.
He did not know who had excavated the pipe trench that caused his injury or who installed the
pipe sleeve in that trench. Plaintiff had no knowledge or information regarding whether anyone
from Poli was present at the work site either on or before the date of his injury.
¶ 11 Subsequently, plaintiff sued Poli and other defendants, alleging causes of action under
theories of construction negligence, premises liability and direct negligence. Specifically,
plaintiff alleged defendants failed to reasonably inspect and properly operate, manage, maintain
and control the premises; failed to provide plaintiff with a safe workplace; failed to warn him of
the dangerous conditions; failed to provide adequate safeguards; failed to supervise the work;
placed the pipe sleeve in an unsafe location; failed to properly bury the pipe sleeve and backfill
the trench in which it was located; failed to properly protect the pipe sleeve; improperly
sequenced and coordinated the work; and failed to provide a safe work support.
¶ 12 In its answer, Poli denied plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and alleged as affirmative
defenses that plaintiff’s negligence caused his injuries; something other than Poli’s acts or
omissions caused plaintiff’s injuries; the alleged unsafe condition was open, obvious and well
known to plaintiff; any liability assessed to Poli must be reduced by plaintiff’s contributory or
comparative negligence; Poli had no duty to warn plaintiff because it had no notice of the alleged
-4- No. 1-18-1079
unsafe condition; Poli did not owe plaintiff a duty of care because it did not control, direct or
supervise the operative details of his work; and plaintiff’s alleged injuries were proximately
caused by people or entities other than Poli.
¶ 13 Thereafter, Poli moved for summary judgment, arguing the undisputed facts showed that
Poli was not present, did not perform any work, and did not control any work conditions at the
site on or before the date plaintiff sustained his injury. Furthermore, Poli did not cause or create
the alleged hazard and had no notice of its existence. Poli attached several exhibits to support its
motion, including the depositions of plaintiff, Anthony Poli and other witnesses; the subcontract
between Dynasty and Poli; records indicating the time Poli spent at the site and payments made
to Poli for its work; and the affidavit of K.R. Miller project manager Taylor. Poli argued this
evidence established that it did not begin any work at the construction site until April 2014,
about three months after plaintiff’s January 9, 2014 injury. Poli argued that it was entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff could not establish the duty and
proximate cause elements of his negligence claims against Poli.
¶ 14 The weekly “project info sheets” and “daily reports” produced by Leopardo, the general
contractor during the first phase of the project, listed the contractors performing work for
Leopardo. These documents predate the date of plaintiff’s injury and do not list Poli as
performing any work at the site.
¶ 15 The deposition of Poli foreman Anthony Poli established that he was a licensed machine
operator and plumber and had coordinated and scheduled all the work performed by Poli. The
subcontract between Dynasty and Poli provided that Poli would commence work at the site on a
date “TBD” and its plumbing work was limited to an exterior area five feet away from a
-5- No. 1-18-1079
structure at the site. Poli signed the contract on April 10, 2014, and Dynasty signed it on May 22,
2014. Mr. Poli testified that he was Poli’s only licensed machine operator for excavation work,
he was never present on the job site until April 2014, and Poli’s records showed that it did not
perform work at the site until April 2014.
¶ 16 He also testified that, because the project involved the Chicago public school system,
subcontractors were not allowed to perform work until all the relevant paperwork, which
included executed contracts, proof of insurance and permits, was filed. Poli’s excavation permit
did not permit digging at the site until April 9, 2014. Mr. Poli recalled that when he went to the
site to install the water service pipes, the building under construction was already three stories
tall and another contractor had poured a concrete floor. He was not at the site during the winter
months or when snow was on the ground. Furthermore, Poli was not allowed to drop off
materials or store items at the site before April 2014.
¶ 17 Mr. Poli testified that Poli did not use or install any pipe sleeves in performing its work at
the site and never installed water service pipes underneath grade beams because that would
adversely affect the structural integrity of the building. Water, sewer and storm service lines
were installed at least five feet or deeper from the surface. Accordingly, the pipe in the trench
that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury was not installed by Poli because the photograph of the
scene of the accident showed that the trench in question was significantly less than five feet
deep. Finally, Poli, according to its standard practice, immediately backfilled the trenches it
excavated once the relevant piping was installed. Consequently, Poli would not have left any
trench at a site open for other workers to work in or around.
-6- No. 1-18-1079
¶ 18 According to his deposition, Humphries testified that Dynasty did not install any pipe
sleeves and he did not know whether Poli installed any pipe sleeves. During the winter, either
before or after January 9, 2014, K.R. Miller project manager Taylor informed Dynasty that he
was ready for Dynasty to deliver its pipe sleeves. Humphries explained that K.R. Miller required
plumbers to deliver their sleeves because K.R. Miller would not let anyone tunnel under the
grade beam after it was set in place and the concrete was poured. Accordingly, Humphries went
to the site, recalling that there was still snow on the ground, to deliver three PVC sleeves. At the
site, Humphries observed Mr. Poli pull up in his red truck that had “Poli” spelled in yellow
letters on the side. Poli had one white 8-foot PVC sleeve in the open bed of his truck. Humphries
duct-taped the ends of his three sleeves and put the clips on, and—as instructed by Taylor—
turned the sleeves over to the ironworkers, who then installed the sleeves into the grade beam.
The ironworkers’ forms were already in place around the rebars, which were already tied.
¶ 19 Humphries explained that it was common practice for plumbers to give their sleeves to
either ironworkers or concrete pourers to install when working near grade beams; no digging was
necessary because the ironworkers or pourers installed the sleeves inside the grade beam, not
underneath it. Humphries was focused on observing the installation of his sleeves and did not see
Mr. Poli do any installation work or know who installed Poli’s sleeve. Humphries remembered
seeing workers pouring concrete at one end of the site and a track hoe bearing “something like a
V3 logo.” Humphries did not return to the site until March 2014.
¶ 20 Humphries explained that there were multiple grade beams throughout the project at the
site. The grade beams were constructed of rebar in a trench, then formed up and filled with
concrete. The pipe sleeves Humphries gave the ironworkers were placed within the rebar
-7- No. 1-18-1079
framework, not underneath it. Various trades besides plumbers could install a pipe sleeve for
water main service on a project like this. In the spring of 2014, Dynasty hired Palos Electric to
dig trenches for Dynasty on this project. Also that spring, Humphries met with Taylor to discuss
Poli “not showing up” at the site yet to start installation of the exterior piping. Thereafter,
Humphries saw Poli doing excavation work at the site but never saw Poli digging under a grade
beam to lay a water main pipe on this project.
¶ 21 In his June 17, 2016 affidavit, K.R. Miller project manager Taylor attested that his
employer subcontracted with Dynasty for building and plumbing work at the site, which work
included the installation of pipe sleeves. Pipe sleeves created openings in the foundation of a
structure for sanitary and storm sewer pipes that would be installed later in the construction
process.
¶ 22 Taylor also attested, based on his employer’s contemporaneously created payroll business
records, that (1) Dynasty’s weekly certified payroll reporting form for the week ending January
5, 2014, indicated that Dynasty employee Steven Alleman performed work at the site on
December 30, 2013, January 2, 2014, and January 3, 2014, for a total of 24 hours, (2) Dynasty
also submitted to K.R. Miller for transmission to the city’s public building commission an
application for payment for the period ending March 31, 2014, (3) this application indicated that
Dynasty had not made any prior application for payment for its work at the project, and (4) the
continuation sheet of this application showed in item numbers 7 and 9 that Dynasty’s work—
described as sanitary-underground, with a scheduled value of $15,615, and storm-underground,
with a scheduled value of $6,701—was completed during the period ending March 31, 2014.
-8- No. 1-18-1079
¶ 23 Although not mentioned in Taylor’s affidavit, the continuation sheet also showed in item
numbers 3, 4 and 5 that Poli’s work, which was described as site water service, site
sewer/drainage, and site sub-drainage, was not completed as of the period ending March 31,
2014. Furthermore, as of the March 31, 2014 period, Poli had not made any application for
payment for any work at the project.
¶ 24 In his December 4, 2017 deposition, Taylor testified that he did not recall when Poli was
physically on the site, did not know who placed the pipe at issue, and did not recall seeing any
Poli employees at the site before the date of plaintiff’s injury. After this litigation commenced,
Taylor had a conversation with Humphries, who told him that Poli dug the trench at issue.
Although Taylor conceded that he did not “know for sure who placed [the] sleeve [at issue, he]
would assume that [Poli] did [it] because [Humphries] didn’t own any equipment to dig *** the
trench, that [Taylor] was aware of.” However, Taylor also conceded that if Poli had performed
work to install a pipe sleeve, that work would be reflected in Poli’s job hour time sheets. Finally,
Taylor testified that a decision was made in December 2013 not to backfill trenches that were
dug out and Taylor doubted that anyone from Poli was present at that meeting.
¶ 25 K.R. Miller superintendent Ingraham testified in his deposition that his handwritten notes
about the work taking place on the site on January 9, 2014, contained the phrase “plumber on
site,” and was a reference to Dynasty. On that date, pipe sleeves were being installed but actual
plumbing work was not being done. Ingraham did not see who placed the pipe sleeves and did
not know what company, if any, had delivered the pipe sleeves. He explained that when grade
beams were being installed, first a trench was excavated from caisson to caisson before rebar was
placed and concrete was poured. According to Ingraham, because the pipe in question would
-9- No. 1-18-1079
have been installed underneath the grade beam, backfill would not have been placed over it and
concrete would have been poured instead. Furthermore, PVC piping, which is white and plastic,
was not normally used as a pipe sleeve for a water main in Chicago, and the pipe involved in
plaintiff’s injury was black in color. Ingraham did not know if Poli had done any excavation
work on the site before the accident date, did not know when Poli was first on the site, and had
no reason to believe that Poli caused or contributed to the accident.
¶ 26 In response to Poli’s motion, plaintiff argued that summary judgment was precluded
because testimony in the record flatly contradicted Poli’s assertion that it did not perform any
work on the site on or prior to the date of plaintiff’s injury. According to plaintiff, the evidence
showed that only Poli was responsible for the excavation and backfilling work related to laying
pipe sleeves exterior to the structure; Poli was the only plumber on site that had the proper
equipment to perform exterior site work; Dynasty’s vice president Humphries remembered
seeing Mr. Poli at the site with an 8-foot sleeve at the same time Humphries was at the site
during the winter to deliver his sleeves for the wall; the time logs kept by K.R. Miller general
superintendent Ingraham indicated that a “plumber” was on the site on January 9, 2014, to install
water, sanitation, and sewer sleeves; and K.R. Miller project manager Taylor believed, based on
his conversation with Humphries, that Poli had installed the sleeve at issue because Dynasty
never brought excavation equipment to the site to dig that trench.
¶ 27 In its reply, Poli argued that plaintiff tried to avoid summary judgment by relying on
statements taken out of context from the depositions of Humphries, Taylor and Ingraham even
though these three witnesses all testified that they did not observe Poli or Mr. Poli working at the
- 10 - No. 1-18-1079
site at any time before plaintiff’s injury and did not know who installed the pipe or dug the
trench in question.
¶ 28 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Poli and against plaintiff, ruling
that plaintiff failed to allege facts to make a sufficient showing of the existence of a genuine
issue of material fact concerning whether Poli was working at the site at any time prior to
plaintiff’s accident and injury. The court noted that none of the deposed witnesses indicated they
knew that either Poli or Mr. Poli was working at the site at any time prior to plaintiff’s injury.
Moreover, the documentary evidence concerning the presence of subcontractors working at the
site and their applications for payment indicated that neither Poli nor Mr. Poli worked at the site
at any time before April 2014, which was three months after plaintiff’s injury. Accordingly, the
court found that plaintiff’s allegation that Poli was working at the site before the date of
plaintiff’s injury was mere speculation and insufficient as a matter of law to establish a question
of material fact to survive Poli’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court also found that
there was no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal of this judgment.
¶ 29 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 30 Summary judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and should be entered
only when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt. Gilbert v. Sycamore
Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511, 518 (1993). A defendant moving for summary judgment
may meet the initial burden of production by either affirmatively showing that some element of
the case must be resolved in defendant’s favor, or by showing the absence of evidence
supporting the plaintiff’s position on one or more elements of the cause of action. Hutchcraft v.
Independent Mechanical Industries, Inc., 312 Ill App. 3d 351, 355 (2000). The plaintiff is not
- 11 - No. 1-18-1079
required to prove his case at the summary judgment stage; in order to survive a motion for
summary judgment, he must present a factual basis that would arguably entitle him to a
judgment. Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 335 (2002).
¶ 31 Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c)
(West 2016). The court must construe these documents and exhibits strictly against the moving
party and liberally in favor of the nonmoving party. Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance
Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307, 315 (2004). The court may draw reasonable inferences from the undisputed
facts, but where reasonable persons could draw divergent inferences from the undisputed facts,
the issue should be decided by a trier of fact and the motion for summary judgment denied.
Siegel v. Village of Wilmette, 324 Ill. App. 3d 903, 907 (2001); Loyola Academy v. S & S Roof
Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263, 271-272 (1992). We review a trial court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Home Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d at 315. That is, we perform the same analysis
as a trial court and may make our decision on any basis in the record, regardless of whether the
trial court relied on that basis. Guterman Partners Energy, LLC v. Bridgeview Bank Group, 2018
IL App (1st) 172196, ¶¶ 48-49.
¶ 32 Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of Poli. To properly state a cause of action for
negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant
breached this duty, and that the plaintiff incurred injuries proximately caused by the breach.
Wojdyla v. City of Park Ridge, 148 Ill. 2d 417, 421 (1992). To survive a motion for summary
judgment in a negligence case, the plaintiff must present some factual basis in support of each
- 12 - No. 1-18-1079
element of the cause of action, including proximate cause. See Sanchez v. Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co., 237 Ill. App. 3d 872, 873 (1992).
¶ 33 Plaintiff claims that Poli negligently failed during its work, which included excavation
and the installation of pipes or pipe sleeves, to backfill the trench at issue. On appeal, plaintiff
argues that summary judgment should not have been entered in favor of Poli because the record
shows clear disputes in the evidence regarding whether Poli excavated the trench and installed
the pipe sleeve involved in plaintiff’s accident on or before January 9, 2014, the date of
plaintiff’s injury. Specifically, contrary to Poli’s assertion that it began work at the site in April
2014, plaintiff argues that (1) Humphries testified that he saw Mr. Poli at the site carrying a pipe
sleeve during the winter months of 2013 to 2014, while there was snow on the ground; (2) Taylor
testified that he believed Poli installed the sleeve because Poli had the necessary equipment to do
the excavation work whereas Dynasty did not; and (3) Ingraham’s notes indicated that a plumber
was at the site on January 9, 2014, to install water, sanitation, and sewer sleeves.
¶ 34 Unless a duty is owed, there is no negligence, and whether a duty exists is a question of
law for the court to decide. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. National
Advertising Co., 149 Ill. 2d 14, 26 (1992). The issue of the existence of proximate cause is one of
fact which is normally determined by the trier of fact. However, at the summary judgment stage,
the plaintiff must present affirmative and positive evidence that a defendant’s negligence was
arguably a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Wilson v. Bell Fuels, Inc., 214 Ill. App. 3d
868, 872–73 (1991). When the material facts are undisputed and there can be no reasonable
difference in judgment as to the inferences drawn from the facts, and there has been no
affirmative showing of proximate cause, a plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of
material fact; at this point, the issue of proximate cause is a question of law, and summary
- 13 - No. 1-18-1079
judgment is proper as a matter of law. Chmielewski v. Kahlfeldt, 237 Ill. App. 3d 129, 137
(1992); Wilson, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 873.
¶ 35 Negligence may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence; “circumstantial
evidence will suffice when causation is established by facts and circumstances which, in the light
of ordinary experience, reasonably suggest that the defendant’s negligence operated to produce
the injury.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Gyllin v. College Craft
Enterprises, Ltd., 260 Ill. App. 3d 707, 713 (1994). However, the existence of proximate cause
cannot be established by speculation, surmise, or conjecture. Kalata v. Anheuser–Busch Cos.,
144 Ill. 2d 425, 437 (1991). “The circumstances must justify a reasonable inference of
probability of negligence, as distinguished from mere possibility.” Gyllin, 260 Ill. App. 3d at
714.
¶ 36 Our review of the record establishes that plaintiff’s allegation—that Poli performed some
excavation or pipe or pipe sleeve installation work at the site before plaintiff’s January 9, 2014
injury—is based on speculation and conjecture. The overwhelming evidence in the record shows
that there is no genuine issue concerning the material fact that Poli began working at the site in
April 2014—about three months after plaintiff’s injury. This fact is supported by Mr. Poli’s
testimony, Poli’s payroll documents, the signed subcontract between Dynasty and Poli, Poli’s
excavation permit, the affidavit of the general contractor’s project manager and the general
contractor’s payroll records, and the consistent testimony of plaintiff, Dynasty’s vice president,
and the general contractor’s project manager and general superintendent that they did not see or
recall seeing Mr. Poli or Poli workers at the site performing excavation work or installing pipe
sleeves or pipes before plaintiff sustained his injury.
- 14 - No. 1-18-1079
¶ 37 Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions on appeal, Humphries testified that he merely saw Mr.
Poli deliver one pipe sleeve to the work site at the same time during the winter that Humphries
was delivering three pipe sleeves. Humphries, however, clearly testified that he did not see Poli
perform any excavation work at that time or install the pipe sleeve. Moreover, Humphries
explained that, before the actual plumbing work began, the general contractor required plumbers
to deliver their sleeves for installation by ironworkers or concrete pourers because the general
contractor would not allow anyone to tunnel under the grade beam after it was set in place and
the concrete was poured. In addition, Humphries met with project manager Taylor in the spring
of 2014 to discuss the issue that Poli had not been at the site yet to begin its pipe installation
work.
¶ 38 Also, Taylor’s assumption that Poli installed the sleeve at issue was premised on his
understanding that Dynasty did not own the necessary equipment to dig a trench. Taylor’s
assumption, however, was unwarranted because Humphries testified that Dynasty hired another
entity to dig trenches for Dynasty on this project. In addition, Taylor testified that a decision was
made in December 2013 not to backfill the trenches already in existence at the site and he
doubted that anyone from Poli was even at that meeting. Finally, superintendent Ingraham
testified that the statement in his notes about a plumber being on site on January 9, 2014, was a
reference to Dynasty, not Poli.
¶ 39 The purpose of summary judgment is not to try an issue of fact, but to determine whether
any triable issues of fact exist. Chmielewski, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 137. While a plaintiff need not
prove the case at the summary judgment stage, enough evidence must be presented to create a
genuine issue of material fact. Atwood v. Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Co., 239 Ill. App. 3d
- 15 - No. 1-18-1079
81, 90 (1992). We conclude that plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that Poli had
engaged in excavation or pipe installation work on or before January 9, 2014, the date plaintiff
sustained his injury. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot show that Poli created the condition that
caused his injury and owed him a duty of care as to that condition.
¶ 40 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 41 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court that granted
summary judgment in favor of defendant Poli.
¶ 42 Affirmed.
- 16 -