Garest v. Booth
12 N.E.3d 661
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Garest injured when she fell down a stairwell in Booth Orthodontics, a building built by Brigham and owned by Booth.
- Booth's building plans and surrounding lighting were at issue; Brigham allegedly failed to install required lighting per approved plans and codes.
- Brigham's construction finished years before the accident; it had no ongoing control or occupancy of the premises.
- Garest alleged negligence in construction and maintenance of lighting affecting ingress/egress; expert opined lighting was inadequate.
- Jury verdict allocated fault 64% Brigham, 34% Booth, 2% Garest; interrogatories and jury instructions concerned Garest’s status as invitee/trespasser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by Brigham as contractor | Garest—Brigham owed ordinary care in construction | Brigham—no landowner duty; not an owner/occupier | Brigham owed reasonable care in construction |
| Proximate cause and foreseeability | Foreseeable injury from inadequate lighting | Not foreseeability; Brigham not liable for maintenance | Brigham’s lack of proper lighting foreseeably caused the accident; proximate cause established |
| Jury interrogation on invitee/trespasser | Evidence supports invitee theory; jury can consider it | Garest was trespasser as a matter of law; invitee theory improper | Jury’s invitee finding improper; new trial required for Booth on liability and apportionment |
| Jury instructions on implied invitation | Instructions permissible if supported by evidence | Implied invitation theory unsupported by evidence | Trial court abused by instructing implied invitation; new trial as to Booth required |
| Remand and apportionment of fault | Fault should be allocated among all parties | Fault allocation affected by improper instructions; Brigham to participate in apportionment only | Remand for new trial on Booth liability and apportionment; Brigham to participate in apportionment only |
Key Cases Cited
- Benamon v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 294 Ill. App. 3d 85 (1997) (landowner duty to entrants; trespasser distinctions)
- Cunis v. Brennan, 56 Ill. 2d 372 (1974) (duty requirements; foreseeability factors)
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (1992) (trespasser duty; ordinary care for foreseeable dangers)
- Lange v. Fisher Real Estate Development Corp., 358 Ill. App. 3d 962 (2005) (contractor liability; possession/controls questioned)
- Randich v. Pirtano Construction Co., 346 Ill. App. 3d 414 (2004) (fireman’s rule; easement context)
- Deibert v. Bauer Brothers Construction Co., 188 Ill. App. 3d 108 (1989) (contractor liability; possession/control nuances)
- Corcoran v. Village of Libertyville, 73 Ill. 2d 316 (1978) (county-village liability; premises control)