Plaintiff sued his neighbor (whose building is 6-8" from Plaintiff's home) and the neighbor's roofing contractor over damage to Plaintiff's roof. Contractor attempted to place a new roof on top of neighbor's existing roof and secure it to Plaintiff's roof, without Plaintiff's consent or knowledge, and caused damage to Plaintiff's roof. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded vicarious and in-concert liability against the neighbor, based on roofing contractor's actions. Lacking any personal knowledge of any oral or written interactions between Defendant's, Plaintiff could not be any more specific than to allege that neighbor had the right to approve, direct, and control the manner of the contractor's work. Plaintiff should not, at this stage, be required to lay out the evidence supporting these ultimate facts. Complaint adequately alleges that contractor was not an independent contractor, but acted specifically at neighbor's direction in altering Plaintiff's roof and was thus neighbor's agent at least to that extent. Complaint alleges "control" as to direction to attach the new rubber roof to Plaintiff's roof, and thus adequately pleaded claim for vicarious liability. Complaint adequately alleges that neighbor "substantially encouraged" contractor to drill holes in Plaintiff's roof as part of a plan to connnect over its roof and attach it to Plaintiff's roof, and thus sufficiently alleged in-concert liability. (McBRIDE and BURKE, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Construction Contracts