held that where the injured party, in the performance of his work, is struck by unsupported trusses, he can recover if the jury finds that the proximate cause of the injury was defendant’s failure to provide necessary supports in violation of the Act. (Urman, 101 Ill. App. 3d at 1096.) Plaintiff urges this court to follow Prange and Ur-man and to resolve the question as to whether the Act is applicable to supports for material or solely to supports for workers. Contrary authority, relied upon by the trial court, holds that the Act applies solely to support for workers and specifically does not apply to injuries caused as a result of the failure to provide or inadequacy of support for materials. (See, e.g., Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1980), 90 Ill. App. 3d 1024, 414 N.E.2d 147 (<HOLDING>); Carlson v. Moline Board of Education (1984),
holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else holding that to come under the act the harm must be caused by a failure of something a worker is using to support himself holding that a defendants propensity to commit crime generally even if the resulting harm would be not solely physical may constitute sufficient risk of danger to come within contemplation of the bail reform act holding that harm is irreparable where damages would come too late to save the plaintiffs business holding that the worker was entitled to full ttd benefits because the employer never made an offer of employment once the worker was released to work