Hornacek v. 5th Ave. Property Management
959 N.E.2d 173
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Hornacek fell on ice in the north parking lot of a 5th Avenue property; Rice was contracted to perform snow removal for the lot.
- Plaintiff alleged 5th Avenue owned/managed the building and was negligent in maintaining and removing ice/snow, creating an unnatural ice condition.
- Rice argued his duty was limited to plowing under the contract and he did not create an unnatural accumulation; the contract did not require monitoring for ice.
- The court considered whether the ice was an unnatural accumulation created by Rice and whether 5th Avenue had actual or constructive notice of the condition.
- Evidence included depositions describing snow piles against the north wall, melting runoff forming ice, and prior complaints to Brannen about plowing practices.
- The circuit court granted Rice and 5th Avenue summary judgment; the appellate court reversed and remanded to allow fact-finding on duty, breach, causation, and notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hornacek showed a genuine material fact that Rice created an unnatural ice condition. | Hornacek demonstrates linkage between Rice plowing and ice formation. | Rice contends no evidence links his plowing to the ice or shows an unnatural condition. | Yes; factual issue exists whether Rice created the ice. |
| Whether 5th Avenue had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. | 5th Avenue knew or should have known of the abnormal ice accumulation. | No evidence of prior notice or abnormal condition was shown. | Yes; material fact issue on notice. |
| What is the appropriate duty standard for snow removal contractors in such premises liability cases. | Contractor bears duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid creating/ aggravating an unnatural condition. | Contract terms limit duty to specified snow-removal activities. | Duty extends to not negligently creating an unnatural accumulation. |
| Whether the accumulation was attributable to natural conditions or the defendant's conduct. | Evidence shows piles, runoff, and melting created abnormal ice. | Ice could be natural and not tied to defendant’s conduct. | Unnatural accumulation supported; issue for trier of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erasmus v. Chicago Housing Authority, 86 Ill.App.3d 142 (1980) (duty to exercise reasonable care in snow/ice removal; safe ingress/egress)
- Branson v. R & L Investment, Inc., 196 Ill.App.3d 1088 (1990) (snow removal contractor's duty when removing snow; identify artificial condition)
- Handy v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 182 Ill.App.3d 969 (1989) (plaintiff must show the accumulation was created or defendant knew of it)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill.2d 215 (2010) (landowner not liable for natural snow/ice; liability for aggravated/unnatural condition)
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 298 Ill.App.3d 712 (1998) (no notice needed when defendant created the condition)
- Smolek v. K.W. Landscaping, 266 Ill.App.3d 226 (1994) (constructive notice requires condition existed for sufficient time or was conspicuous)
- Bloom v. Bistro Restaurant Ltd. Partnership, 304 Ill.App.3d 707 (1999) (proof of constructive/actual notice required for dangerous condition)
- Gehrman v. Zajac, 34 Ill.App.3d 164 (1975) (use of reasonable inferences on summary judgment to determine material facts)
- Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill.2d 78 (2007) (duty vs. breach vs. proximate cause; issues governed by law)