Trial Magazine

David Craig, 49, was standing in the parking lot of the apartment building where he lived when a gust of wind blew a seven- to eight-foot section of shingles off the roof. The ­shingles struck Craig’s head. He lost consciousness briefly and fell onto the pavement, twisting his back. His girlfriend arrived soon after, and she and another tenant helped Craig back to his apartment.

The next day, Craig experienced neck and low back pain. His doctor diagnosed a concussion. Craig’s head and neck issues resolved without additional treatment, but his low back pain became more severe. When imaging revealed a herniated disk at L4-5, he underwent a fusion at that level. The surgery failed, however, and he will require revision surgery. He continues to suffer from severe low back pain, which in turn caused him to develop right foot drop. He was unable to return to work.

Craig sued the apartment complex, alleging that the roof with the unsecured shingles posed a hazard on the premises and that the complex had notice of the problem but failed to have it repaired properly. He contended that a roofing company that had installed new shingles on the roof had warned the complex about the need to replace it. The plaintiff asserted that about five or six years before the incident, the apartment association noticed missing shingles and other problems with the roof and called a roofing company. The company allegedly told the building owners that they needed to redo the roof completely, but the owners allegedly told them to simply replace the missing areas of shingles. About a year before the incident, the roofing company again replaced sections of missing shingles at the complex and again told the building owners that they needed a new roof.

Suit against the roofing company alleged that when its employees came out to replace the missing sections of shingles, they failed to ensure that the nails used were long enough to go through each layer of shingles and penetrate the building’s attic space. The plaintiff presented evidence that the roof had excessive layers of shingles and that the top layer was not properly secured to the building.

The roofing company moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the photos of the shingles that struck the plaintiff did not look like the shingles the company used. The roofing company also argued that it had warned the complex owner on several occasions that the older layers of shingles needed to be completely replaced.

Both defendants also disputed whether the plaintiff’s fall could have caused his disk injury and foot drop. The defendants argued that Craig’s condition was likely the result of degenerative disk disease from years of truck driving.

The parties settled before trial for approximately $1.03 million. The complex owner’s insurer paid $1 million, and the roofing company paid $25,000.

Citation: Craig v. MW Roofing Aluminum, Inc., No. 2014-L-009567 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. July 18, 2017).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Patrick J. Blum and Joseph R. Curcio, both of Chicago.

Plaintiff experts: Gregory H. Pestine, construction safety; Michael Treister, orthopedic surgery; and Stan Smith, economics, all of Chicago.

Defense experts: Harry Smith, biomechanics, San Antonio, Texas; and Michael Pakter, economics, Chicago