Gore v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
2021 IL App (3d) 210077
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- On December 19, 2016, Dan Gore slipped on ice on a sidewalk near the western entrance of a Pilot Travel Centers gas station and sued for negligence.
- Weather records showed snow/icy precipitation on December 17–18 and a high of 15°F on December 19.
- Pilot employees testified they performed shoveling/salting as needed; a vendor plowed and salted fuel/parking areas on Dec. 16–17, and maintenance staff (four by ~12:55 p.m.) handled sidewalks.
- Depositions indicated maintenance usually performed exterior walk-arounds multiple times per shift and used drop spreaders to salt sidewalks; a photo taken after the fall showed salt on the sidewalk.
- Plaintiff alleged Pilot undertook sidewalk snow/ice removal but failed to remove or warn of ice; Pilot moved for summary judgment arguing no evidence of an unnatural accumulation or notice.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Pilot; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pilot assumed a duty via voluntary snow/ice removal to keep sidewalks clear | Gore: Pilot’s snow-removal policy and employee practices show it voluntarily undertook sidewalk removal, creating a duty of reasonable care | Pilot: Voluntary removal does not create a duty to eliminate natural accumulations or a duty beyond not creating an unnatural accumulation | Held: Voluntary removal does not require complete removal; duty limited to not creating an unnatural accumulation |
| Whether Pilot breached any assumed duty by leaving ice where Gore fell | Gore: Failure to remove all ice or warn customers breached its undertaken duty | Pilot: No evidence removal caused or increased ice; some salt was applied and employees routinely patrol | Held: No evidence that Pilot’s actions created an unnatural accumulation; no breach shown |
| Whether violation of internal snow-removal policy is evidence of negligence | Gore: Company policy required sidewalk maintenance; its violation supports negligence | Pilot: Internal policies do not create a private-law duty or prima facie negligence | Held: Internal rules/guidelines do not create a legal duty or constitute evidence of negligence |
| Whether Pilot had actual or constructive notice of the ice before the fall | Gore: Presence of prior precipitation and alleged inadequate removal support notice | Pilot: No proof employees knew or should have known of the specific ice patch before fall; regular patrols and salt use were in place | Held: No actual or constructive notice established; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 39 (2009) (summary judgment standard; evidence construed for nonmovant)
- Bloom v. Bistro Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, 304 Ill. App. 3d 707 (1999) (plaintiff must show defendant responsible for unnatural accumulation to survive summary judgment)
- Tzakis v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 740 (2005) (voluntary removal creates duty of reasonable care but not an obligation to clear all natural ice)
- Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 171 Ill. App. 3d 1012 (1988) (under voluntary-undertaking theory, plaintiff must show defendant’s efforts created an unnatural accumulation)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213 (1996) (self-imposed rules or guidelines generally do not create a legal duty)