2012 IL App (4th) 110992
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Barber slipped in a Danville gas-station parking lot after a snow event in February 2007.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant failed to maintain premises by permitting snow to form an unnatural accumulation near parking areas.
- Defendant denied any duty to remove or warn about natural accumulations of snow or ice.
- A contractor plowed the lot and others salted near metal plates, allegedly altering the condition.
- The jury awarded damages to plaintiff, later reduced by 25% for plaintiff's comparative fault; court denied post-trial relief.
- Court reversed and remanded, holding the accumulation was natural and defendant had no duty to remove it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the natural accumulation rule bars liability | Barber argues the natural accumulation was aggravated by defendant’s actions. | G.J. Partners contends no duty to remove natural accumulation; synthetic changes did not create an unnatural condition. | Yes; natural accumulation barred liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (Ill. 2010) (no duty to remove natural accumulations; salt does not create liability)
- Harkins v. System Parking, Inc., 186 Ill. App. 3d 869 (Ill. App. 3d 1989) (salting does not aggravate natural condition to create liability)
- Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill. 2d 133 (Ill. 1953) (shoveling and thawing do not necessarily create liability when melting recurs)
- Ordman v. Dacon Management Corp., 261 Ill. App. 3d 275 (Ill. App. 3d 1994) (unrealistic to expect perfect snow/ice removal; not absolute insurer)
- Zide v. Jewel Tea Co., 39 Ill. App. 2d 217 (Ill. App. 2d 1963) (courts reject blanket liability for naturally accumulated ice/snow)