Greene v. Wood River Trust
998 N.E.2d 925
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Greene slipped on an icy walkway near a residence she leased from Wood River Trust and related entities on Feb 12, 2010.
- Plaintiff filed negligence claims; defendants moved to dismiss under 2-619 arguing immunity under the Snow and Ice Removal Act (Act).
- Trial court dismissed the complaint but allowed amendment to plead willful and wanton conduct; later amendments were dismissed.
- Plaintiff retained willful and wanton allegations in later amendments; defendants moved to dismiss under 2-615 and the court dismissed again.
- Appellate court held the Act does not bar negligence claims where ice results from defective construction or insufficient maintenance, not snow/ice removal efforts, and remanded for reinstatement of negligence counts.
- Appellate court affirmed dismissal of willful and wanton counts and discovery denial, but remanded counts I, III, V, VII for reinstatement and plea proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act bar Greene's negligence claims when ice was caused by premises defect? | Greene argues Act does not apply to defects in construction/maintenance causing ice. | Defendants contend Act immunizes injuries from snow/ice removal efforts regardless of defect. | Act does not bar negligence where ice stems from defective premises. |
| Are Greene's willful and wanton claims adequately pled after the Act issue? | Counts allege conscious disregard and reckless conduct. | Counts fail to show deliberate harm or conscious disregard required. | Counts II, IV, VI, VIII properly dismissed. |
| Did the trial court err in denying additional discovery time for Greene? | Greene needed more time to locate witnesses for factual support. | Court acted within its broad discovery discretion. | Denial of additional discovery time affirmed. |
| Should counts I, III, V, VII (negligence) be reinstated on remand? | Negligence claims were improperly dismissed under the Act. | Negligence claims were barred or properly challenged. | Counts I, III, V, VII reinstated; remand for pleading/pleading response. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLean v. Rockford Country Club, 352 Ill. App. 3d 229 (2004) (unnatural ice caused by construction/maintenance immunity concerns)
- Gallagher v. Union Square Condominium Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc., 397 Ill. App. 3d 1037 (2010) (driveway icy conditions; Act limited to sidewalks; not applicable here)
- Pikovsky v. 8440-8460 North Skokie Blvd. Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 103742 (2011) (snow removal efforts; limited applicability of Act)
- Ries v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill. 2d 205 (2011) (statutory interpretation of legislative intent; plain language governs)
- Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 (2012) (requirements for willful and wanton conduct claim)
- Callahan v. Edgewater Care & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 630 (2007) (strict construction against immunity sources)