Doe v. The University of Chicago Medical Center
31 N.E.3d 323
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Jane Doe, a night-shift phlebotomist at the University of Chicago Medical Center, alleges defendants promised SafeRide transportation, security escorts, adequate lighting, and 24-hour-manned security desks as part of her employment inducement and instructions for obtaining escorts.
- On Feb. 16, 2009, she sought assistance at the Goldblatt Pavilion security desk, found it unmanned after waiting, proceeded on foot to her car parked several blocks away on Midway Plaisance, and was beaten and raped off defendants’ property.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence (based on a voluntary undertaking) and breach of oral contract; husband asserted loss-of-consortium claims. The complaint alleged she relied on defendants’ promises and was instructed to request escorts in-person at security desks.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9), submitting affidavit and deposition of the director of public safety stating the Goldblatt desk was not staffed overnight, phones/emergency call boxes and other staffed desks were available, and SafeRide/escort services were on-call.
- The trial court treated the 2-619 motion like summary judgment, rejected plaintiff’s allegations and affidavits, and dismissed with prejudice, ruling plaintiff failed to request services and defendants owed no duty for off-premises third-party criminal acts.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the defendants’ submissions merely contradicted well-pleaded allegations and did not constitute "affirmative matter" defeating the claims; material fact questions existed about the scope/terms of the promised services and whether plaintiff was instructed not to use phones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ 2-619 submission constituted "affirmative matter" defeating claims | Doe: Allegations must be taken as true; defendants’ evidence only contradicts complaint and is not proper affirmative matter | Univ.: Morris affidavit shows desk wasn’t staffed and phones were available, so plaintiff never activated services and no promise was breached | Court: Defendants’ evidence only contradicted well-pleaded facts; it was not affirmative matter under 2-619(a)(9); complaint survives (genuine factual dispute exists) |
| Whether plaintiff failed to request escorts/transportation so duty never triggered | Doe: She followed instructions to request in-person at security desk and was prevented from doing so because desk was unmanned; she was told not to use phones | Univ.: Plaintiff could have used house phone, emergency phone, or cell phone to request SafeRide/escort but did not | Court: Fact issue exists as to what plaintiff was instructed to do; cannot resolve on 2-619; plaintiff’s affidavit created material fact issue |
| Whether defendants owed duty for off-premises criminal attack | Doe: Voluntary undertaking (if assumed) can extend beyond premises; duty defined by scope of promise | Univ.: No duty to protect from third-party criminal acts off property | Court: Trial court erred; a voluntary undertaking’s scope, not property lines, defines duty—issue for further proceedings |
| Whether trial court properly treated 2-619 motion as summary judgment and demanded evidentiary proof beyond pleading | Doe: 2-619 admits well-pleaded allegations and is not a vehicle to contest factual basis; plaintiff entitled to plead-stage treatment | Univ.: (argued dismissal still correct on record) | Court: Trial court erred in treating 2-619 as summary judgment, but appellate court reviews ultimate correctness; here dismissal was erroneous because factual disputes remained |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Waukegan Park Dist., 231 Ill. 2d 111 (explains limits of 2-619(a)(9) where affidavit merely contradicts complaint)
- Epstein v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 178 Ill. 2d 370 (describes evidentiary use of affidavits on pleadings-stage motions)
- Howle v. Aqua Illinois, Inc., 2012 IL App (4th) 120207 (distinguishes proper “yes but” 2-619 motions from improper fact-contesting motions)
- Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enters., LLC, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139 (section 2-619 not for mini-trials contesting factual allegations)
- Jackson v. Shell Oil Co., 272 Ill. App. 3d 542 (voluntary undertaking limited to scope promised; not a basis to impose broader duties)
- Lewis v. Razzberries, Inc., 222 Ill. App. 3d 843 (summary judgment affirmed where plaintiff undisputedly did not request an offered escort)
- Johannesen v. Eddins, 2011 IL App (2d) 110108 (existence and terms of an oral contract are factual questions for trial)