Construction Regulation Statutes Do Not Inherently Create a Duty of Care
In West American Ins. Co., v. Trent Roofing, et al. (ILND, Doc. No. 06 C 1239) the evidence before the court was that the plaintiff's building burned when a roofer caught the place on fire with a torch. The roofer performing the work was a man named Eller. A man named Covelli had applied for permits in the name of a different entity called Trent Roofing. Trent Roofing performed no work on the building. No written contract existed between Trent Roofing and the plaintiff or any other party. Trent also presented evidence that it never authorized Covelli to obtain permits under the Trent Roofing name.
The court found that no contractual duty existed between Trent and the plaintiff.
The interesting portion of the courts decision is at Slip Op. 5, where the court refutes the plaintiff's allegations that independent statutes such as OSHA regulations, the Illinois Roofing Industry act, and the City of Burbank's building and fire code, created some form of duty that Trent Roofing owed to the plaintiff. Too often parties point to the existence of regulatory statutes, that give no right of private action to individuals, in an attempt to show that a duty exists or that some duty of care was breached. Here, the court dismissed the claims that these statutes created a duty of care and granted Trent Roofing's Motion for Summary Judgment.
