Epple v. LQ Management, LLC.
138 N.E.3d 874
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On July 9, 2014, Christina Epple tripped and fell while walking through a covered driveway/walkway adjacent to the La Quinta Inn in Chicago on her route from a nearby parking garage to her office; she alleged defective, uneven pavement.
- Epple sued LQ Management for negligence, claiming the hotel owed a duty to maintain the walkway in a reasonably safe condition.
- LQ moved for summary judgment, arguing Epple was a trespasser using the driveway as a shortcut and the hotel owed only the limited duty to avoid willful and wanton conduct.
- Depositions: Epple described the route as a common, busy pedestrian corridor with markings saying “Pedway” and “no vehicles allowed”; hotel GM Gary Platt testified pedestrians frequently used the driveway ("maybe a hundred a day or more"), denied signage forbidding pedestrian use, and said staff sometimes asked trespassers (e.g., smokers or homeless persons) to leave.
- Photographs in the record were low quality and taken two months after the fall; they did not conclusively resolve whether pedestrian signage existed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; the appellate court reversed, finding genuine factual disputes about whether defendant’s tolerance of pedestrian use amounted to permission (the permissive-use/frequent-trespass exception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant owed ordinary-care duty under the permissive-use / frequent-trespass exception | Epple: hotel tolerated habitual pedestrian use of the driveway and thus impliedly permitted it, making users licensees entitled to ordinary care | LQ: pedestrian use was merely tolerated/predictable (like Skoczylas), not consent; area intended for vehicles, so only willful/wanton duty applies | Reversed summary judgment — triable facts exist whether tolerance rose to permission; permissive-use exception may apply |
| Whether plaintiff was a trespasser as a matter of law | Epple: testimony of signage, heavy pedestrian use, and lack of prohibitory enforcement creates fact question | LQ: nature of premises and need to allow access to customers shows mere toleration, not consent | Not decided finally; question of status is factual and for the factfinder |
| Whether photographic and Platt testimony negated Epple’s evidence of permissive use | Epple: photos and Platt do not conclusively refute her testimony; photos taken later and are low quality | LQ: photos and Platt’s testimony contradict Epple’s claim of permissive-use signage | Court: conflicts in testimony and inadequate photos create triable issues; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether place-of-danger exception needed resolution | Epple argued also under place-of-danger; permissive-use was primary | LQ disputed status and duty | Court: did not reach place-of-danger because permissive-use dispute required reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill.2d 432 (Ill. 1992) (sets out exceptions to no-duty rule for trespassers, including frequent trespass/permissive-use and place-of-danger)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill.2d 213 (Ill. 1996) (defines trespasser and explains policy behind no-duty rule)
- Skoczylas v. Ballis, 191 Ill. App.3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (permissive-use exception not met where owner merely tolerated unavoidable crossing of an open parking lot)
- McKinnon v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 263 Ill. App.3d 774 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (example where continued toleration supported reversal on permissive-use question)