Claimsone v. PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MGMT.
956 N.E.2d 1065
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Brome, employed by Tri-County Opportunities, was injured on a rear apartment staircase at Blackhawk Apartments after a snow/ice event; plaintiff is subrogee for workers' comp benefits paid to Tri-County and Brome.
- Plaintiff sues Professional Property Management, LLC, Blackhawk Apartments, and Janis Pumfrey alleging negligent maintenance and causation of injuries.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to remove natural snow/ice; trial court granted, and appellate court affirms.
- Leases and maintenance/caretaker agreement between management and caretaker include snow/ice provisions; tenant obligation to maintain premises is alleged but not explicitly to stairways.
- Material facts include the caretaker’s duties, who performed snow removal, and the contractual language limiting duties to sidewalks and “walks,” not stairs.
- Court addresses whether voluntary undertaking or contract-based duty creates a duty to remove snow/ice on the day of accident; holds no duty established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a voluntary undertaking to remove snow/ice creating a duty? | Brome relied on Gilroys’ prior snow removal, creating a duty. | No ongoing duty; prior voluntary removal does not create duty absent reliance. | No duty; lack of reliance precludes voluntary-undertaking duty. |
| Did contractual language impose a duty to remove snow/ice from the rear staircase? | Leases and maintenance/caretaker agreement intended to cover snow removal. | Contracts only require sidewalks/walks; no express duty to staircases. | No express contractual duty; terms do not include staircases. |
| Is there a general common-law duty to remove natural snow/ice? | Exceptions for voluntary undertaking or contractual duty apply here. | No common-law duty to natural accumulations; exceptions do not apply. | No common-law duty; exceptions not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galivan v. Lincolnshire Inn, 147 Ill.App.3d 228 (1986) (no duty to remove natural accumulations absent special circumstances)
- Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638 (1931) (no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice or snow)
- Bourgonje v. Machev, 362 Ill.App.3d 984 (2005) (voluntary undertaking; nonfeasance/misfeasance distinctions; reliance element)
- Chisolm v. Stephens, 47 Ill.App.3d 999 (1977) (reliance required for gratuitous undertakings; no duty here)
- Eichler v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 167 Ill.App.3d 685 (1988) (contractual involvement analyzed; multiple contracts irrelevant here)
- Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 171 Ill.App.3d 1012 (1988) (contract to remove snow may create duty to third parties if explicit; otherwise not)
- Schoondyke v. Heil, Heil, Smart & Golee, Inc., 89 Ill.App.3d 640 (1980) (landlord/condo snow-removal contracts may create duty to third parties)
- Judge-Zeit v. General Parking Corp., 376 Ill.App.3d 573 (2007) (management contract language needed to impose snow-removal duty; generally not implied)