Harden v. The City of Chicago
1 N.E.3d 1175
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On Dec. 1, 2008, Harden exited a CTA bus and attempted to cross Adams Street at Adams & Wacker; there was a light dusting of snow and heavy pedestrian traffic.
- A large steel plate (≈6'×4'×2") with two ~4" holes lay in the street adjacent to the curb; Harden testified the plate was outside the marked crosswalk and she stepped onto it while crossing between the stop line and the eastern marked crosswalk line.
- Harden fell when her foot caught in a hole in the plate and suffered fractures; she sued the City under a negligence theory alleging the plate created a dangerous condition.
- The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty because Harden was not an intended and permitted user of the street when she crossed outside the marked crosswalk (745 ILCS 10/3-102).
- Harden argued the marked crosswalk lines were obscured by snow and pedestrian traffic, so she was within a statutory (unmarked) crosswalk or otherwise an intended user; she submitted affidavits but had earlier deposition testimony placing the plate outside the marked crosswalk.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the appellate court affirmed, holding Harden was not an intended user and the snow did not alter the City’s intended use of the street.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City owed a duty under section 3-102 when plaintiff crossed outside the marked crosswalk | Harden: crosswalk lines were invisible due to snow/traffic, so she was in a de facto statutory crosswalk or otherwise an intended user | City: plate and fall occurred outside the marked crosswalk; duty extends only to intended/permitted users within crosswalks | Court: No duty — Harden crossed outside the marked crosswalk and was not an intended user; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether obscured markings (snow) create a material factual dispute requiring trial | Harden: weather/peoples’ presence made lines invisible; affidavits support being within crosswalk area | City: plaintiff’s deposition, photo evidence place plate and fall outside crosswalk; no evidence plate was within lateral sidewalk lines | Court: No genuine dispute — deposition/photo show plate outside crosswalk; affidavits did not overcome admission; no remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wojdyla v. City of Park Ridge, 148 Ill. 2d 417 (recognizes municipality owes no duty for pedestrians crossing outside crosswalks)
- Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort, 166 Ill. 2d 155 (reiterates no duty for midblock crossings outside crosswalks; foreseeability ≠ intended use)
- Curatola v. Village of Niles, 154 Ill. 2d 201 (narrow exception: duty for area immediately around a lawfully parked vehicle)
- Marshall v. City of Centralia, 143 Ill. 2d 1 (parkway use by pedestrians can create intended/permitted use distinct from street-crossing cases)
- Kavales v. City of Berwyn, 305 Ill. App. 3d 536 (distinguishes alley/sidewalk junctions and examines statutory crosswalk definitions)