Bartkowiak v. City of Aurora
102 N.E.3d 842
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff tripped and fell in a depression in the asphalt driving aisle of the Route 59 Metra parking lot maintained by the City of Aurora, suffering a fractured humerus and other serious injuries.
- Plaintiff sued for negligent failure to maintain the lot and for inadequate artificial lighting; defendant pleaded contributory negligence and statutory immunities and moved for summary judgment partly on de minimis grounds.
- Experts agreed the depression was about 1.5 inches deep; plaintiff at times estimated about four inches and argued aggravating factors (crowded "madhouse" rush-hour conditions, bottleneck exits, broken asphalt, known pavement deterioration, and testimony from city employees that the defect was a tripping hazard) made the defect actionable.
- At trial the jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff ($920,000, reduced by 50%) and answered a special interrogatory that the defect had a vertical difference of 1.5 inches or less.
- The trial court held the special interrogatory was inconsistent with the general verdict, treated a ≤1.5-inch depth as de minimis as a matter of law (no duty to remedy), entered judgment for defendant, and denied plaintiff's motion to reinstate the verdict.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the special interrogatory should not have been given because aggravating circumstances presented factual questions for the jury and the interrogatory answer was not inconsistent with the general verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly submitted a special interrogatory asking if the defect had a vertical difference of 1.5 inches or less | The interrogatory was improper because depth alone was not an ultimate issue; aggravating factors could make a ≤1.5-inch defect actionable, so the jury could find liability despite that depth | The interrogatory was proper because de minimis doctrine eliminates duty for defects below the threshold; depth was the determinative fact and a ≤1.5-inch finding precluded liability | Reversed: interrogatory was improper; aggravating factors created jury questions so depth alone was not dispositive |
| Whether a finding that the defect was ≤1.5 inches was inconsistent with the jury's general verdict for plaintiff | Even if depth ≤1.5 inches, surrounding circumstances (crowding, layout, broken asphalt, prior deterioration, testimony that it was a tripping hazard, and how plaintiff fell) could support liability | A ≤1.5-inch finding is de minimis and inconsistent with a verdict for plaintiff because no duty exists for such slight defects | Reversed: the special-interrogatory answer was not inconsistent with the general verdict given factual disputes about aggravating circumstances |
| Whether the trial court correctly resolved de minimis/aggravating-factor issues as a matter of law | De minimis is fact-sensitive; aggravating factors (location, broken asphalt, high pedestrian volume, foreseeability) must go to the jury | Court may decide de minimis as law where no aggravating factors exist; trial court did so here | Court found aggravating factors were in dispute, so de minimis should not have been resolved by special interrogatory or as a matter of law |
| Whether summary-judgment rulings or prior rulings justified the special interrogatory | Plaintiff argued trial court only granted summary judgment on lighting; it did not eliminate the jury questions about aggravating factors | Defendant argued prior rulings removed aggravating-factor issues so interrogatory narrowed the jury's role to depth | Held plaintiff preserved her objections; prior rulings did not eliminate factual issues about aggravating circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Birck v. City of Quincy, 241 Ill. App. 3d 119 (application of de minimis rule; liability generally attaches for defects approaching two inches)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (standards for special interrogatories; tests for consistency with general verdict)
- Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst, 11 Ill. 2d 601 (de minimis standard is fact-sensitive; no precise mathematical line)
- Putman v. Village of Bensenville, 337 Ill. App. 3d 197 (municipal duty not to repair de minimis defects; policy reasons)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (duty is a question of law for the court)