Shipra Mehta wins Motion for Summary Judgment Defending Construction Manager after Fall at Church

2020-L-007145 (Cook County, Illinois)

Partner Shipra Mehta won another summary judgment representing a construction manager who had done construction work on a church.

Plaintiff, a 58-year-old woman, was a member of a small church who slipped while she was walking up the church podium. She sustained injuries to her arm and shoulder, requiring surgery and incurring significant medical bills. Plaintiff sued a number of parties including the church and a variety of construction companies that had performed work on the church over the years. Shipra took up the defense of a construction manager who had done construction work on the church over a decade before the incident. All parties except the construction manager were dismissed voluntarily early on due to claims of non-involvement with the subject area of the fall.

Shipra defended the construction manager vigorously through over two years of discovery. Plaintiff attempted to attach liability to the construction manager by claiming both that the construction manager designed and constructed the podium that plaintiff fell on, and that the construction manager was responsible for ongoing maintenance and repair duties for the podium. Plaintiff further alleged that the construction manager was somehow responsible for allowing the premises to remain in dangerous and slippery condition despite not having worked on the podium for over 10 years.

After completing the necessary discovery, Shipra filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by the statute of repose, and there were no facts whatsoever which supported a claim that there was any ongoing duty on behalf of the construction manager to the church or its patrons. Further, Shipra claimed any defect was open and obvious and that plaintiff cannot establish a proximate cause between any action from the construction company and the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge agreed, granting the motion and dismissing the construction company with Plaintiff’s claims in the entirety.