Supreme Court Clarifies Restatement Second 414 Retained Control Claims From Vicarious Liability Claims

By: Geoff Bryce

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.

Chicago, Illinois 312-377-1501 | Crown Point, Indiana 219-488-2590

Chicago, Illinois


Crown Point, Indiana