Atchley v. University of Chicago Medical Center
2016 IL App (1st) 152481
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Delivery driver Steven Atchley (HJC) backed into UCMC dock 5 early morning; the dock leveler had been inoperable for months and no warning or removal-from-service measures were in place.
- No UCMC employees were present in the unloading area; security testimony conflicted about who assigned docks and whether drivers were informed about the leveler.
- Steven lowered his truck’s air suspension; a small height differential (a few inches) remained. He used a motorized pallet jack to remove the first pallet successfully; afterward the truck rose and the pallet jack became stuck in the gap.
- Alone on the dock, Steven used a steel dolly to try to free the jack; the dolly slipped and he fell, fracturing his ankle.
- UCMC moved for summary judgment arguing the condition was open and obvious (no duty) and that the broken leveler did not proximately cause the injury; the trial court granted summary judgment for UCMC.
- The appellate court reversed, holding factual disputes existed on duty (including the deliberate-encounter exception) and proximate cause, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCMC owed a duty given an allegedly open-and-obvious dock condition | Atchley: the few-inch gap’s danger was not necessarily obvious; alternatively, deliberate-encounter exception applies because drivers routinely choose to accept small risks to meet job demands | UCMC: nonfunctional leveler created an open-and-obvious condition, eliminating duty | Reversed: triable issues exist whether the risk was open-and-obvious and whether the deliberate-encounter exception applies; duty question not resolved as a matter of law |
| Whether the deliberate-encounter exception applies | Atchley: drivers routinely make early deliveries and may reasonably choose to encounter small gaps to perform job duties; UCMC could anticipate that | UCMC: driver could have waited or used another dock; no reason to expect drivers would proceed | Held: evidence could support that UCMC should have anticipated drivers would deliberately encounter the gap; fact issue for jury |
| Whether the broken leveler was a proximate cause of injury | Atchley: but for the broken leveler the jack wouldn’t have stuck and he wouldn’t have been injured; injury was a foreseeable consequence | UCMC: the leveler was a mere condition and intervening acts (driver’s conduct) broke causal chain | Held: genuine issue of material fact exists on cause in fact and foreseeability; proximate cause is for the trier of fact |
| Whether contributory negligence bars recovery | UCMC: driver’s attempts to free the jack and use of the dolly were negligent | Atchley: disputed; whether conduct was negligent is a fact issue and cannot defeat summary judgment | Held: contributory negligence raises factual questions for trial and does not entitle UCMC to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341 (summary judgment standard and when it is appropriate)
- Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432 (summary-judgment review; construe record against movant)
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (open-and-obvious doctrine affects duty analysis)
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill.2d 435 (open-and-obvious condition does not automatically eliminate duty; consider all duty factors)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill.2d 215 (four-factor duty analysis)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill.2d 380 (deliberate-encounter principles and employer/worker choices)
- Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill.2d 428 (proximate cause is for the trier of fact)
- First Springfield Bank & Trust v. Galman, 188 Ill.2d 252 (intervening efficient cause and foreseeability in proximate-cause analysis)