Background
John Greenfield sued Earl Brannan and Menards after being injured by a culvert pipe that fell from Brannan’s pickup truck. Brannan had purchased a 20-foot polyethylene pipe from a Menards store in Marion, Illinois in April 2023. In the lumberyard, a Menards employee named James Holan helped Brannan lift and load the pipe onto Brannan’s truck after Brannan had begun the task himself. Brannan then drove away without yet securing the pipe, planning to tie it down with his own ratchet strap once he left Menards’ property. While driving, the pipe migrated to the side of the truck and eventually fell, injuring Greenfield who was riding a bicycle.
Greenfield initially sued only Brannan but later amended his complaint to add Menards, alleging that Menards was negligent because its employee helped load the pipe without ensuring it was properly secured. The amended complaint asserted that Menards owed a duty to exercise care in loading the pipe and that by voluntarily undertaking to help load it, Menards assumed responsibility for securing it. Menards moved for summary judgment, arguing that its employee’s role was limited to helping load the pipe, not to securing it, and that this distinction was crucial to the scope of any duty.
The evidence at summary judgment showed that Menards had a company-wide policy prohibiting employees from securing or helping to secure customer loads for insurance and liability reasons. Picking tickets informed customers that “our insurance does not allow us to tie down or secure your load” and directed them to a tie-down shed with available materials. Menards employees could help load items but were explicitly forbidden from securing them. Brannan testified he never asked for or expected help securing the pipe and had intended to secure it himself using materials he brought, consistent with his past practice.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for Menards. The court held that Menards’ voluntary undertaking was limited to helping load the pipe onto the truck and did not extend to a duty to secure it. Under Illinois law, when a defendant voluntarily undertakes to perform services, the duty of care imposed is narrowly construed and limited to the extent of the actual undertaking. Here, the undisputed facts showed that Holan’s only action was helping to lift the pipe onto Brannan’s vehicle—there was no evidence that Menards or its employee ever offered to secure or tie down the load. The court rejected the suggestion that offering customer assistance with loading carries an implicit duty to secure loads, noting this would improperly expand the scope of the undertaking beyond what was actually performed.
The court further held that even assuming arguendo that Menards had undertaken a duty to secure the pipe, summary judgment would be proper because Brannan did not rely on Menards to do so. Brannan explicitly testified that he did not expect anyone from Menards to secure the pipe and that he planned to tie it down himself. For claims based on nonfeasance (failure to perform an undertaking), reliance is an essential element required to establish proximate cause. Since Brannan did not rely on Menards, plaintiff could not recover on this theory.
Key Takeaways
- Retailers and businesses that offer to help customers load merchandise do not automatically assume a duty to secure that merchandise by performing the loading function.
- The scope of a voluntary undertaking is narrowly construed and limited to what was actually undertaken, not what could be inferred from partial assistance.
- Company policies explicitly disclaiming responsibility for securing loads are relevant to determining the scope of the undertaking a business has actually made to its customers.
- For voluntary undertaking claims based on nonfeasance, the plaintiff must show reliance on the defendant’s undertaking; absent reliance, summary judgment is proper.
- Courts will not read into a business’s customer service policies a broader duty than what the business actually agreed to undertake.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance to retailers and other businesses that assist customers with loading large items. The court makes clear that such assistance does not automatically expose the business to liability for securing those items. The distinction between loading and securing—treating them as separate undertakings—protects businesses that have reasonable policies limiting employee involvement in load securement. The decision respects contractual and policy disclaimers, recognizing that a business can limit its undertaking to assistance with placement rather than assumption of responsibility for safe transport. This is particularly significant for home improvement stores, lumberyards, and similar retailers where customer self-service loading is common.
The decision also underscores the importance of reliance in voluntary undertaking cases. Even if a business’s actions could theoretically be characterized as creating a duty, absent evidence that the injured party actually relied on the business to fulfill that duty, there can be no recovery for nonfeasance. The court’s reasoning protects businesses and their employees from unlimited liability exposure for casual or incidental assistance provided to customers, so long as the scope of that assistance is clearly defined and the customer does not rely upon broader performance.