In Moss v. Rowe Construction Co., 344 Ill. App. 3d 772, 801 N.E.2d 612 (4th Dist. 2003), an electrical worker’s estate brought a negligence action against the general contractor after the worker was killed while engaged in the removal of concrete foundations on a highway project. The worker had been employed by an electric subcontractor under contract to the defendant to remove traffic control devices and install new ones as part of the defendant’s contract with the Illinois Department of Transportation. Under the general contract, the defendant was obligated to control project safety, and the general contract’s requirements, along with the Illinois Department of Transportation’s standard specifications, were incorporated into the subcontract. The trial court granted summary judgment to the general contractor on grounds that it did not retain or exercise control over the work being done to remove the concrete foundations.

The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the defendant’s contract with the Illinois Department of Transportation created a genuine issue of material fact over the general contractor’s duty to control safety on the highway project. The court stated that the issue was not control over “means and methods” of performing the subcontractor’s work, but rather which party contractually had the duty to control safety. It criticized Shaughnessy v. Skender Construction Co., 342 Ill. App. 3d 730, 794 N.E.2d 937 (1st Dist. 2003) for disregarding contractual language that had obligated the general contractor to be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety programs. It distinguished Ross v. Dae Julie, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 1065, 793 N.E.2d 68 (1st Dist. 2003) on the basis that no contract had imposed a duty to control safety on the general contractor. Here, the general contractor had agreed to control safety on the project and the court stated that it could not ignore the specific contract language.