Farrell v. Farrell, 72 N.E.3d 410

On August 21, 2015, 12-year-old Austen Farrell rode a dirt bike on property owned by his paternal grandmother, Stephanie Farrell, and collided with another minor’s ATV, sustaining injuries.
Plaintiff (by his mother Emily Scheel) sued defendant for negligence, alleging the defendant failed to warn, supervise, or remedy dangerous conditions (mature corn obstructing visibility) on her property.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting she owed no duty because plaintiff was under his father Heath’s supervision and Heath had permitted riding on the property.
Affidavits: Heath stated he had given permission and was the custodial parent supervising Austen; Scheel stated children frequently rode on the dirt road and corn blocked sightlines.
Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding (1) the parents had the primary duty for the child’s safety and Heath’s permission was the proximate cause, and (2) riding with limited visibility was an open-and-obvious danger.
On appeal the court affirmed, finding plaintiff forfeited challenges to the parental-duty/proximate-cause rationale and, on the merits, that diminished visibility from tall corn was an open and obvious danger for a 12‑year‑old, so the landowner had no duty to protect against it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant owed a duty to protect a child from reduced visibility caused by mature corn on her property	Defendant (grandmother) had a duty to monitor/warn children because corn created a hidden, dangerous condition	No duty: the danger was open and obvious and parents had primary responsibility; plaintiff was under parental permission/supervision	Court: Duty did not exist — the corn-created visibility hazard was open and obvious to a 12‑year‑old; no duty to warn or remedy
Whether defendant’s failure to supervise/provide warnings was proximate cause of injury	Defendant’s omission caused the collision	Heath’s permission and parental supervision were the last proximate cause	Court: Plaintiff forfeited attacking proximate-cause/parental-duty ruling; trial court found parental permission was the proximate cause and affirmed

Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (summary judgment standard and survival burden in negligence)
Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill. 2d 278 (landowner duty toward child-invitees governed by ordinary negligence principles and limitations)
Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 2012 IL 112948 (four-factor test for landowner duty to remedy dangerous conditions frequented by children)
Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill. 2d 614 (landowner duty principles)
Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435 (open-and-obvious doctrine explanation)
Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consolidated Communications, 169 Ill. 2d 110 (children expected to appreciate obvious dangers)
Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (exceptions to open-and-obvious rule)
LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (deliberate encounter/distraction exceptions discussion)