Bell v. Bakus
16 N.E.3d 819
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Bell, a minor, suffered burn injuries when his shirt ignited while walking past the kitchen stove in his Des Plaines apartment; his mother Street had turned on burners due to cold conditions.
- The stove bordered the primary hallway into the kitchen, and Bell passed by it when injured.
- Street and Bell alleged the stove’s placement violated safety norms and that the landlord and manager failed to install a counter or relocate the stove as promised.
- Defendants Bakus (owners) and Rasho (manager) argued no duty to relocate the stove and that the lease contained no written agreement to move the stove or install a counter.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding no proximate cause; Bell appealed, asserting a jury could find proximate causation based on placement and safety design.
- A contested issue was whether the defendants’ alleged voluntary undertaking to fix the stove created a duty and whether the stove’s location could be the legal cause of the injuries, aided by expert testimony on design toxicity and safety standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate cause and duty from voluntary undertaking | Bell argues defendants undertook a duty to reposition the stove and install a counter | Bakus/Rasho contend no express duty to move stove; lease unsigned | Sufficient evidence of duty and proximate cause; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether stove placement was the actual cause in fact | Placement could have been a material factor in Bell’s injuries | Burner left on and uncovered was sole cause | Jury to decide; evidence supports fact that placement could have caused injuries |
| Whether stove placement was the legal cause (foreseeability) | Foreseeable that proximity of stove to entry risks harm | Unclear foreseeability; open flame as sole proximate cause | Evidence raises foreseeability; legal cause exists and avoids summary judgment |
| Consideration of unsigned lease in establishing duty | Not necessary that lease be signed; conduct shows intent to relocate | Only signed writings binding; unsigned lease ineffective | Court assumed duty under voluntary undertaking; unsigned lease not fatal to Bell's claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096 (Illinois Supreme Court 2011) (elements of negligence; duty, breach, causation, damages; proximate cause questions for jury)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (Illinois Supreme Court 2010) (proximate cause; substantial factor test; jury for factual inferences)
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (Illinois Supreme Court 1992) (legal cause as foreseeability; whether injury is within scope of duty)
- Scherba v. City of Chicago, 284 Ill. App. 3d 435 (Illinois Appellate Court 1996) (proximate cause may be decided on summary judgment when facts are one-sided)
- Lewis v. Chica Trucking, Inc., 409 Ill. App. 3d 240 (Illinois Appellate Court 2011) (summary judgment standard; when facts permit reasonable inferences)