The Legal Limits of Lending a Hand: Greenfield v. Brannan and the Scope of Voluntary Undertakings by Employers

August 2026

Deanna C. Salem

When an employee assists with a potentially hazardous task, how far does the employer’s legal duty extend? Greenfield v. Brannan, 2026 IL App (1st) 250882, explores that question after a Menards employee helped a customer load a 20-foot section of polyethylene pipe onto the customer’s truck. The customer secured the pipe himself, but the pipe later shifted while he was driving and struck a bicyclist. The resulting litigation required the Illinois Appellate Court to determine the scope of Menards’ undertaking and whether its employee’s assistance extended beyond loading the pipe. The Appellate Court held that the employee’s undertaking was limited to loading of the pipe but not the securing of the pipe.

Under Illinois law, a person generally has no duty to protect another from harm. A duty may arise, however, when a person voluntarily undertakes to help protect another. The Illinois Supreme Court has looked to Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323, 324A (1965) in defining the voluntary undertaking doctrine. Bell v. Hutsell, 2011 IL 110724, ¶ 12. Section 323 addresses undertakings to protect the person or property of the person receiving the services, while section 324A addresses undertakings to protect third persons. The doctrine is “narrowly construed,” and “the duty of care to be imposed upon a defendant is limited to the extent of the undertaking.” Id.

The Duty Extends Only as Far as the Undertaking

In Greenfield, Earl Brannan purchased the pipe from Menards, where employee James Holan helped him load it onto his truck. Brannan, however, secured the pipe himself. While he was driving, the pipe shifted and extended over the side of the truck, striking John Greenfield as he rode his bicycle. Greenfield argued that Holan’s assistance created a voluntary undertaking to secure the pipe. That argument was not supported by the record. Holan never offered to secure the pipe, Menards’ policy did not permit him to do so, and Brannan never asked for assistance. Brannan also testified that, consistent with his prior practice, he secured the pipe himself after leaving the lumberyard. Based on these facts, the court held that Menards’ undertaking was limited to helping Brannan load the pipe, not securing it. That holding is consistent with Frye v. Medicare-Glaser Corp., 153 Ill. 2d 26 (1992), and Bell, which likewise limited a defendant’s duty to the scope of the undertaking.

The court also identified an independent reason the theory failed. Because Greenfield alleged that Menards failed to perform the undertaking by not securing the pipe, the claim involved nonfeasance, for which reliance is required under Bell, 2011 IL 110724, ¶¶ 23, 27. Brannan, however, testified that he did not expect anyone to help him and instead secured the pipe himself. The lack of reliance therefore independently defeated Greenfield’s voluntary undertaking claim.

The Limits of “In Concert” Liability

After rejecting the voluntary undertaking theory, the court considered Greenfield’s alternative argument that Menards acted “in concert” with Brannan under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(c) (1979). Greenfield argued that Menards’ assistance in loading the pipe substantially assisted Brannan’s failure to secure it. The court, however, found no evidence that Holan actively facilitated Brannan’s failure to secure the pipe, noting that Brannan would have loaded the pipe even without Holan’s assistance. Consistent with Umble v. Sandy McKie & Sons, Inc, 294 Ill. App. 3d 450, 451-52 (1998), merely failing to prevent another’s conduct does not constitute substantial assistance. Section 876(c) also requires Menards’ own conduct to constitute a breach of duty, but the record contained no allegation or evidence that Holan was negligent in performing the task he undertook, which was helping load the pipe.

Why Greenfield Matters

For businesses and their counsel, Greenfield provides practical guidance for assessing when an employee’s assistance may give rise to a legal duty. The focus should be on what the employee specifically undertook to do, what the employee and customer understood the employee’s role to include, whether that limited task was a causal factor in the incident, and whether anyone relied on the employee to perform an additional task. Businesses should clearly define employee responsibilities and communicate their limits to employees and customers, particularly when assisting with potentially hazardous tasks. Clear policies and consistent practices can help establish the intended scope of an employee’s role. For claims based on nonfeasance, evidence that the customer did not rely on the employee to perform an additional task may also provide an independent defense.

BCM Law, P.C. advises businesses and employers on voluntary undertakings, employee conduct, and related negligence and liability issues. Our attorneys are available to provide guidance when questions arise concerning the scope of an employee’s responsibilities or potential liability.