Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998

Bruns tripped on a tree-root crack in a sidewalk leading to a clinic; city refused tree removal due to historic tree.
Defect was open and obvious; plaintiff argued a distraction exception should apply due to attention diverted to clinic door.
Trial court granted summary judgment for City; appellate court reversed and remanded.
Dispute centers on whether distraction or other duty principles create liability despite open and obvious condition.
Court held the distraction exception does not apply and City owed no duty under four-factor analysis; affirmed trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the distraction exception applies	Bruns argues distraction exception applies	City argues no distraction exists	Distraction exception does not apply
Whether City owed a duty under open-and-obvious rule and four-factor test	Open-and-obvious does not bar duty given distraction foreseeability	Open-and-obvious plus lack of foreseeable distraction negates duty	No duty owed; open and obvious condition; four-factor test weighs against duty

Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill.2d 132 (1990) (distraction from carrying bulky items outside doors)
Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 207 Ill.2d 33 (2003) (distraction due to required task and alternate route)
Deibert v. Bauer Brothers Construction Co., 141 Ill.2d 430 (1990) (distraction created by debris/obstructions; duty extended by contractor's conduct)
American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. National Advertising Co., 149 Ill.2d 14 (1992) (distraction foreseen for worker; open and obvious danger mitigated by distraction)
Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill.2d 435 (1996) (open-and-obvious rule; caution presumed; limits on foreseeability)
Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill.2d 1 (2002) (distraction and duty analysis framework; four-factor test guidance)
Vesey v. Chicago Housing Authority, 145 Ill.2d 404 (1991) (duty analysis in open-and-obvious context)