Claimsone v. Professional Property Management
2011 IL App (2d) 101115
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Brome, a Tri-County Opportunities employee, was injured slipping on snow/ice on a rear apartment staircase at Blackhawk Apartments; Claimsone, as workers’ compensation subrogee, sued for negligence.
- Defendants were Professional Property Management, LLC, Blackhawk Apartments, and Janis Pumfrey; they moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to remove natural snow/ice on the staircase.
- Gilroys (Michael and Sylvia) were site managers for Professional Property Management and testified they cleared snow; contract language referenced sidewalks, not stairs.
- Maintenance/caretaker agreement required keeping sidewalks free of ice and snow and allowed outside vendors; lease with Pumfrey obligated tenants and management to maintain common areas; neither contract expressly covered rear staircases.
- Brome testified the stairs were uncleared the morning of the accident; season’s first snowfall had occurred the night before; the condition was visible when she arrived and again when she exited.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the appellate court affirmed, holding no duty existed to remove snow/ice from the staircase under common law, voluntary undertaking, or contractual grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did voluntary undertakings create a duty on defendants? | Gilroys’ prior practice created a continuing duty to clear stairs. | No ongoing duty; prior removal does not establish a duty for every new accumulation. | No duty; reliance not shown; Chisolm controls. |
| Do lease or maintenance/caretaker contracts impose a duty to remove snow from stairs? | Contracts show duty to keep premises safe and remove snow; stairs covered by agreements. | Contracts do not expressly cover stair removal; terms refer to sidewalks/walks; ambiguity not shown to create duty. | No express contractual duty to clear rear stairs. |
| Was summary judgment proper on the duty issue? | Material facts about duty and reliance preclude summary judgment. | No duty as a matter of law; no material fact precluding judgment. | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue of material fact on duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chisolm v. Stephens, 47 Ill. App. 3d 999 (1977) (reliance required for gratuitous undertakings)
- Bourgonje v. Machev, 362 Ill. App. 3d 984 (2005) (voluntary undertaking to perform snow removal; reliance element in nonfeasance)
- Eichler v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 167 Ill. App. 3d 685 (1988) (contractual language critical in duty analysis; different contract implications)
- Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 171 Ill. App. 3d 1012 (1988) (contract to remove snow may impose duty to third parties; distinction from mere contracting)
- Schoondyke v. Heil, Heil, Smart & Golee, Inc., 89 Ill. App. 3d 640 (1980) (contractual snow removal may create duty extending to nonowners)
- Galan v. Lincolnshire Inn, 147 Ill. App. 3d 228 (1986) (no general duty to remove natural accumulations)
- Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638 (1931) (no duty to remove natural snow/ice accumulations)