Hess v. Flores
350 Ill. Dec. 571
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Hess fell from a defective rear staircase at 2050-2052 W. Summerdale Ave., Chicago, where handrails were removed and yellow tape added.
- City of Chicago had prior inspections (2002–2004) finding the porch/stair system dangerous; housing court actions followed.
- Owners Flores and Klink allegedly leased and managed the building and failed to maintain/repair the rear stairs and porches.
- Before Hess’s 2004 accident, City inspections noted dangerous conditions and repairs were undertaken without permits.
- Roe, a building worker, removed handrails after being told to stop work; City inspectors reportedly directed or approved actions.
- Hess brought negligence and willful-and-wanton claims against the owners and a single willful-and-wanton claim against the City; the trial court granted summary judgment for the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the City owe Hess a duty? | Hess argues City’s affirmative actions created a special duty. | City contends no duty under public or special duty rules; immunity may apply. | Duty respect to Hess rejected; immunity controls |
| Do sections 2-105/2-207 immunize willful conduct here? | 2-105/2-207 do not immunize willful conduct arising from non-inspection acts. | 2-105/2-207 provide blanket immunity for inspections, including willful conduct. | 2-105/2-207 provide blanket immunity for willful conduct in inspection context |
| Does Ries overrule or limit Doe and related theories on duty/immunity? | Doe-like theories support a duty/exception to immunities. | Ries clarifies immunity priority; no Doe-based duty/special-duty override. | Ries controls; immunity prevail, Doe rejected |
| Is section 2-202 relevant as an exception to immunities here? | Doe previously allowed 2-202 to carve out willful/wanton exceptions. | Ries overruled that approach; 2-202 does not override 2-105/2-207 here. | 2-202 does not create an exception; immunities stay intact |
| Are 2-105/2-207 applicable to the City’s conduct described (beyond a narrow inspection)? | Alleged actions beyond inspection should still defeat immunity. | Conduct tied to inspection process triggers 2-105/2-207 immunity. | Immunity extends to conduct related to inspections; broader actions immune |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Zion Park District, 171 Ill.2d 378 (1996) (immunity covers willful/wanton; blanket immunities apply when legislature so provides)
- Harinek v. 161 North Clark Street Ltd. Partnership, 181 Ill.2d 335 (1998) (special duty cannot override immunities under the Tort Immunity Act)
- Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill.2d 30 (1998) (special duty doctrine cannot contravene immunities; public duty rule tempered by immunities)
- Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill.2d 374 (1994) (Doe allowed 2-202 to create willful/wanton exception (overruled later))
- In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill.2d 179 (1997) (immunity interpretations reaffirmed; broad immunities apply)
- Harinek v. 161 North Clark Street Ltd. Partnership, 181 Ill.2d 335 (1998) (public duty doctrine and immunities interplay clarified)
- DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, 219 Ill.2d 509 (2006) (uses statutory framework to analyze duties/immunity interplay)
- Rascher v. City of Champaign, 262 Ill.App.3d 592 (1994) (inspection process immunities extend beyond narrow acts)
- Ware v. City of Chicago, 375 Ill.App.3d 574 (2007) (2-105/2-207 immunities applied to broad inspection-related conduct)
- Pouk v. Village of Romeoville, 405 Ill.App.3d 194 (2010) (immunity protects municipalities for code-violation actions related to inspections)