Blogs

Illinois court rejects expanded liability for retailer assistance

9/2/26

By: Joseph Tripoli

When does helping become liability? Illinois court rejects expanded liability for retailer assistance

Businesses frequently assist customers with loading merchandise, equipment, and building materials. But when an injury occurs after a customer leaves the premises, can that assistance expose the business to liability? In Greenfield v. Brannan, the Illinois Appellate Court considered whether Menard, Inc. could be held responsible after one of its employees helped a customer load a large pipe onto a pickup truck that was later involved in an accident.

The incident

Earl Brannan purchased a 20-foot section of polyethylene pipe from a store operated by Menard, Inc. While in the store’s lumberyard, a Menards employee briefly assisted Brannan with lifting the pipe onto a ladder rack mounted on Brannan’s pickup truck. Brannan later secured the pipe himself before leaving the property. Several hours later, the pipe shifted during transport, fell from Brannan’s truck, and struck bicyclist John Greenfield, causing injuries.

Greenfield sued both Brannan and Menards. As to Menards, Greenfield argued that the employee’s assistance in loading the pipe created a duty to ensure that the pipe was properly secured for transport. Greenfield also contended that Menards could be liable because its employee provided substantial assistance in creating the condition that ultimately resulted in the accident. Menards responded that its employee merely helped lift the pipe onto the truck, did not assist in securing the load, and did not assume responsibility for how Brannan transported the pipe after leaving the store. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Menard, Inc.

The appeal

On appeal, Greenfield argued that Menards voluntarily undertook a duty when its employee helped load the pipe and that the duty extended to ensuring the pipe was safely secured for travel. Greenfield further argued that the employee’s actions constituted substantial assistance sufficient to support liability under a concert-of-action theory.

The appellate court disagreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of Menard, Inc. The court explained that liability based on a voluntary undertaking is limited to the scope of the undertaking itself. Here, the employee’s involvement was limited to helping place the pipe onto Brannan’s vehicle. The employee did not offer to secure the pipe, did not participate in securing it, and was not present when Brannan later tied it down. As a result, the court concluded that helping load the pipe did not create a broader duty to ensure it was safely secured for transport.

The court also rejected Greenfield’s concert-of-action theory. According to the court, the employee’s brief assistance in lifting the pipe onto the truck was too limited and too disconnected from Brannan’s later decision regarding how to secure the load. The court found no evidence that the employee encouraged, directed, or actively participated in the conduct that allegedly caused the accident. Because the employee merely helped load the pipe and did not participate in securing it, the court concluded there was no basis to impose liability on Menards.

Why this case matters

This decision reflects that Illinois courts continue to closely examine the specific conduct a business actually undertakes before expanding liability beyond the party directly responsible for an injury. A business’ involvement in one aspect of a transaction does not necessarily mean it has assumed responsibility for every step that follows.

The opinion is also another example of Illinois courts drawing limits around secondary liability theories. Whether framed as a voluntary undertaking claim or a substantial assistance theory, courts continue to focus on the nature and scope of the conduct actually performed, rather than the mere fact that a business had some involvement in the events leading up to an accident.

For retailers, suppliers, contractors, equipment rental companies, and other businesses that routinely assist customers with loading materials, the case offers insight into how courts may analyze the boundaries of responsibility when an injury occurs after the customer leaves the premises.

For more information, please contact Joseph Tripoli at joseph.tripoli@fmglaw.com or your local FMG Law attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.