Burns v. City of Chicago
59 N.E.3d 846
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Lloyd Burns tripped and fell at a Chicago crosswalk outfitted with ADA detectable warning (truncated-dome) tiles; he was injured on August 15, 2012.
- Tiles were installed by the City in January 2010; a July 2011 Google Maps image showed tiles level with the sidewalk. Post-accident photos showed tiles raised approximately 3/4" (Burns estimated up to 1.5").
- Burns alleged the City negligently installed and maintained the tiles, failed to inspect/repair, and failed to warn; he later added a res ipsa loquitur claim.
- The City moved to dismiss the failure-to-warn claim under the Tort Immunity Act and later moved for summary judgment arguing the condition was de minimis, the City lacked notice, and the condition was open and obvious.
- Trial court granted the City’s §2-619 dismissal on failure-to-warn and later granted summary judgment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| De minimis defect (actionability of elevation difference) | Raised tiles (¾"–1½") and differing material/incline are aggravating factors making defect actionable | Height and features were insubstantial; ADA tiles mandated and contrasting by design; no aggravating circumstances | Condition was de minimis as a matter of law; not actionable |
| Failure to warn (Tort Immunity Act §3‑104) | Tiles are traffic‑warning devices the City must maintain; failure to warn/maintain removes immunity | §3‑104 bars liability for failure to provide or maintain distinctive roadway markings or warning devices | §3‑104 applies; dismissal of failure‑to‑warn claim was proper |
| Constructive notice (§3‑102 duty element) | Visible raised tiles supported inference they existed long enough for City to know | No actual notice; Google image showed tiles level in 2011; evidence did not show duration of defect | Plaintiff failed to raise a material fact on constructive notice; City entitled to immunity |
| Open-and-obvious doctrine (duty analysis) | Jury could find tiles not open and obvious given lighting/rain and plaintiff testimony | Tiles are designed to contrast and warn; condition was observable; risk obvious | Tiles were open and obvious as a matter of law; favors defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst, 11 Ill. 2d 601 (de minimis‑defect standard; reasonably prudent person test)
- Birck v. City of Quincy, 241 Ill. App. 3d 119 (height approaching two inches typically actionable)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (elements of negligence; duty is question of law)
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435 (open and obvious risk reduces foreseeability and duty)