IL House Bill 2094 - From Adoption to Structural Safety
Here's a treat. HB 2094 was
introduced back in February of 2007 as a bill pertaining to the confidentiality
of records and persons under the Adoption Act.
It sat in the House Rules Committee from April 27 of 2007 until April 8,
2008.
On April 8, 2008, it was
revived, cleverly, and an amendment was proposed striking the entirety of
the bill and inserting what appears as a wholly new proposed bill regarding requirements
for safety during construction. The
requirements will undoubtedly be interpreted as providing for strict liability
against those found to have violated the act, they also confer a private right
of action to people injured and a right for any attorney to enforce the act and
receive fees if the Attorney General's office does not act promptly. The act appears to contain provisions that
pertain to just about everyone who could possibly be involved in a construction
project. Of note to Illinois Architects,
and anyone drafting plans is Section 8 of the amendment:
"It shall be the duty of all architects ordraftsmen engaged in preparing plans, specifications or drawings to be used in the erection, repairing, altering or removing of any building or structure within the terms andprovisions of this Act to provide in such plans, specificationsand drawings for all the permanent structural features orrequirements specified in this Act; and any failure on the partof any such architect or draftsman to perform such duty, shallbe a petty offense."
Importantly, this is an attempt, by its own admission,
to reintroduce the Structural Work Act which was repealed in 1995. The legislature had attempted to introduce
the act in 2001, and our readers will have no trouble comparing the provisions
of that bill, with all its clauses, to sections which are similar to this new
attempt to bring back the Structural Work Act.
There are multiple articles and analysis comparing
the shift in the law and the liability of different parties to construction
efforts after the repeal of the original Structural Work Act. Most notably, the shift created a fairer
system allowing for comparative fault to be assessed by a finder of fact, and
brought liability back to common law standards under ยงยง 414 and 343 of the restatement
of torts.. forcing individuals to
actually prove that those they were suing had some form of notice which provided
a duty of care that was breached resulting in a plaintiff's injury. Under the proposed act, Illinois law would
again fall back into the category of states creating duties and
responsibilities for construction entities where none may have existed.
Additionally, what does the "failure to act promptly"
provision mean? Could attorneys get into
the business of policing construction sites for violations of the act, suing
and recouping costs and fees?
