Allen v. Cam Girls, LLC
98 N.E.3d 474
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Feb. 10, 2013, Robin Allen slipped in a strip-mall parking lot owned by Alliance while walking to a Jazzercise studio and fractured her ankle; she later sued Alliance and its snow-removal contractor ZL.
- Alliance had a lease obligation to remove snow/ice for its tenant; Alliance contracted snow removal to ZL, which plowed but did not salt before Allen’s fall.
- Weather: 4.3 inches of snow fell Feb. 8 with temperature fluctuations producing freeze–thaw layers; lot was plowed on Feb. 9 (plowing around cars and creating choppy conditions); no precipitation Feb. 9–10.
- Allen’s experts opined ZL’s plowing (pushing snow to edges and plowing around cars) and resulting mounds/drainage would thaw/refreeze and create unnatural icy accumulations where Allen fell.
- Allen repeatedly testified she did not see ice at the precise spot where she fell and only “assumed” or “guessed” she slipped on ice; other witnesses described icy/choppy conditions elsewhere in the lot.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; appellate court affirmed, holding Allen failed to present evidence linking any alleged unnatural ice to the actual cause of her fall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants can be liable under a voluntary-undertaking theory (Restatement §324A) for snow/ice-related injuries | Allen: contracts/undertakings (Alliance’s lease, ZL’s contract) created duties to remove snow/ice, so defendants are liable if their efforts increased risk or were defective | Defendants: either they performed snow removal (so natural-accumulation rule applies and plaintiff must show an unnatural accumulation) or they followed owner instructions (no salting), and plaintiff cannot show causal link | Court: Even assuming §324A applies, because the lot was plowed, plaintiff must show defendants’ removal was defective (created unnatural accumulation); result is same under either standard |
| Whether there was an unnatural accumulation of snow/ice caused by defendants’ plowing | Allen: expert affidavits show plowing around cars and mounding would create thaw/refreeze and deposit ice in depressions where she fell | Defendants: evidence shows lot was plowed and later cleared; experts’ opinions insufficient without proof plaintiff fell on ice | Held: Experts created some evidence of unnatural ice, but plaintiff failed to prove she actually fell on ice at that spot |
| Causation: whether Allen proved the alleged unnatural accumulation caused her injuries | Allen: circumstantial proof + expert opinions suffice to infer causal link | Defendants: Allen repeatedly admitted she did not see ice where she fell; mere speculation cannot establish causation | Held: No—plaintiff’s testimony was speculative; absent affirmative proof of causation, summary judgment was proper |
| Motion to amend complaint to add allegations about inspections, management plan, and contractual breaches | Allen: proposed amendments would cure pleading defects and add facts showing knowledge and improper practices | Defendants: amendments would not cure the dispositive lack of causal proof | Held: Denial affirmed—proposed amendments would not cure the fatal causation defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Eichler v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 167 Ill. App. 3d 685 (Ill. App. Ct.) (if defendant contracts to remove snow and does nothing, may be liable for natural accumulations; if it acts, liability only for defective efforts)
- McBride v. Taxman Corp., 327 Ill. App. 3d 992 (Ill. App. Ct.) (contractual duty to clear sidewalks does not alone impose liability unless plaintiff shows an unnatural accumulation caused by removal)
- Burke v. City of Chicago, 160 Ill. App. 3d 953 (Ill. App. Ct.) (where snow removal occurred before the fall, plaintiff must show removal was defective and created unnatural accumulation)
- Webb v. Morgan, 176 Ill. App. 3d 378 (Ill. App. Ct.) (plaintiff testified she fell on ice that was result of runoff/refreeze—sufficient circumstantial link)
- Strutz v. Vicere, 389 Ill. App. 3d 676 (Ill. App. Ct.) (summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff lacks evidence of causation despite proof of hazardous condition)
- Judge-Zeit v. General Parking Corp., 376 Ill. App. 3d 573 (Ill. App. Ct.) (speculation/guesswork insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact)
- Schoondyke v. Heil, Heil, Smart & Golee, Inc., 89 Ill. App. 3d 640 (Ill. App. Ct.) (voluntary assumption of snow-removal duty may create liability for natural accumulations where no removal efforts were undertaken)
- Tressler v. Winfield Village Cooperative, Inc., 134 Ill. App. 3d 578 (Ill. App. Ct.) (similar to Schoondyke: landlord’s assumed duty to remove snow can preclude summary judgment when removal efforts are unshown)