2020 IL App (2d) 191116-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- In 2015 Baker leased a house from Clark; the lease required the tenant to keep the premises in good repair but stated the landlord would be responsible for "structural or major maintenance and repairs."
- The house had an exterior cement stairway physically connected to the foundation with a handrail and a floor drain.
- Baker inspected the property before signing and later complained about basement flooding; Clark installed new drains and a sump pump. Baker did not report a crack in the stairs until long after the accident.
- During a storm in June 2017 Baker moved a mat covering the stair drain and, while returning upstairs, caught his foot on a crack in the second stair and fell, sustaining injuries.
- Clark moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, holding Clark had no duty to maintain the stairs because the leased premises were under the tenant’s control. Baker appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stair crack was a "structural" defect that the lease made Clark responsible for repairing | The stair is structural because it is attached to the foundation; the lease makes Clark liable for structural repairs | The crack was a minor, nonstructural defect and the lease placed repair responsibility on the tenant | The crack was not shown to be a structural defect; imposing that view would swallow landlord nonliability. Summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Clark had a duty under the Ward distraction exception to remedy an open-and-obvious condition because he should have anticipated a visitor would be distracted and not notice the crack | Clark should have anticipated Baker could be distracted (e.g., by storm/drainage) and fail to see the defect, making Clark liable despite the defect being open or obvious | Ward applies to business invitees/possessions with daily control; a landlord not in daily possession has no similar duty and should not be required to inspect | The Ward exception does not extend to a nonpossessing landlord in this context; imposing such a duty would improperly require regular landlord inspections. Summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (2008) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Gilley v. Kiddel, 372 Ill. App. 3d 271 (2007) (landlord generally not liable for defects in leased premises under tenant control; exceptions listed)
- Klitzka v. Hellios, 348 Ill. App. 3d 594 (2004) (landlord nonliability for tenant-controlled premises)
- Wright v. Mr. Quick, Inc., 109 Ill. 2d 236 (1985) (possession/control as prerequisite to imposing landlord tort liability)
- Hardy v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 131 Ill. App. 2d 1038 (1971) (distinguishing structural vs. nonstructural defects for lease allocation of repair obligations)
- Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990) (business-owner duty may extend to open-and-obvious hazards if foreseeably distracting to invitees)