Blogs

Illinois court revisits contractor liability and retained control

8/3/26

By: Joseph Tripoli

When businesses hire outside contractors, where does contractor oversight end and potential liability begin? That question frequently arises in industries that rely on third-party vendors, including security companies, maintenance providers, contractors, and property managers. In Taylor v. Chicago Housing Authority, the Illinois Appellate Court examined whether a property owner could be held responsible for injuries arising from the conduct of security personnel employed by an independent contractor.

The incident

The Chicago Housing Authority hired AGB Investigative Services to provide armed security services at CHA properties. One afternoon, two AGB security guards observed individuals firing shots from a vehicle several blocks away from the property they were assigned to patrol. The guards followed the vehicle far from any CHA property. After the vehicle crashed, one of the occupants pointed a gun at a motorist. One of the security guards fired his weapon, and a bullet struck Joseph Taylor, who was sitting in his vehicle at a nearby Wendy’s restaurant.

Taylor sued CHA, AGB, and the security guard. Before trial, Taylor settled with AGB and the guard and proceeded against CHA alone. Taylor alleged that CHA failed to enforce contractual requirements governing security guard qualifications, failed to adequately review security personnel credentials, and failed to properly oversee the security contractor. A jury returned a verdict exceeding $7 million in Taylor’s favor.

The appeal

On appeal, CHA argued that it could not be liable because AGB was an independent contractor whose employees were hired, trained, supervised, and disciplined by AGB, not CHA. CHA further argued that it did not retain control over how AGB performed its work and that internal contractual requirements regarding guard qualifications did not create a legal duty to third parties. Taylor responded that CHA’s own conduct contributed to the injury because it failed to enforce contract provisions requiring security guards to possess certain qualifications and experience. He also argued that CHA retained sufficient oversight and supervisory authority over AGB’s work to support liability.

The appellate court agreed with CHA. The court found that AGB controlled the hiring, training, supervision, discipline, policies, vehicles, communications, and day-to-day operations of its security personnel. Although CHA managed the security contract and had the right to review certain information, the court concluded that such oversight did not amount to control over the details of the contractor’s work.

The court also rejected the notion that contractual standards requiring guards to possess certain experience levels created a duty owed to Taylor. According to the court, internal requirements and contract provisions may be relevant to whether a duty was breached, but they do not themselves create a legal duty to third parties. Finally, the court concluded that the shooting was too remote from CHA’s undertaking to provide security at its properties. The incident occurred far from CHA property and arose from a pursuit unrelated to protecting CHA residents or buildings.

Why this case matters

This decision reflects that Illinois courts continue to draw a distinction between contractual oversight and operational control when evaluating liability arising from the conduct of independent contractors. Although businesses frequently impose contractual requirements, qualification standards, and reporting obligations on vendors, courts often look beyond those provisions and focus on who actually controlled the work at issue.

The opinion also serves as a reminder that internal standards and contractual requirements do not necessarily create duties owed to third parties. Instead, Illinois courts continue to analyze questions of duty through more traditional concepts such as control, foreseeability, and the relationship between the parties.

For businesses that rely on security providers, maintenance companies, contractors, and other third-party vendors, the case offers another example of how courts may evaluate the boundaries of liability when an injury arises from the actions of a contractor rather than the entity that hired it.

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