2022 IL App (1st) 210181
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Mobile Lock and Safe, Inc. installed a ~3-inch-high doorstop on the sidewalk outside the Buona Beef restaurant in Frankfort at the Buona entities’ request.
- On Sept. 27, 2017, plaintiff Jarosz tripped outside the restaurant, lost consciousness briefly, and sustained serious injuries; the restaurant manager’s incident report attributed the trip to the door floor stopper.
- Plaintiff sued the Buona entities and Mobile Lock; the Buona entities later settled and were dismissed, leaving Mobile Lock as the sole defendant on count alleging Mobile Lock negligently designed/selected/installed the doorstop and failed to warn.
- Mobile Lock moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty as an installer (invoking Hunt/completed-and-accepted-work principles); the trial court initially denied the motion, then granted it on reconsideration and entered summary judgment for Mobile Lock.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the completed-and-accepted-work doctrine was not dispositive here, found sufficient evidence to impose a duty on Mobile Lock under traditional negligence factors, and concluded genuine factual issues remain on breach and proximate causation.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mobile Lock owed a duty to plaintiff as installer | Jarosz: Mobile Lock had a duty to design/select/install the doorstop in a reasonably safe location for invitees | Mobile Lock: as mere installer who followed owner specs, it owed no duty to third parties (completed-and-accepted-work rule) | Duty exists: court applied foreseeability/likelihood/burden/consequences factors and found a duty to invitees |
| Whether the completed-and-accepted-work doctrine (Hunt) bars liability | Jarosz: doctrine not dispositive; Mobile Lock did not show it followed owner specifications without discretion | Mobile Lock: Hunt absolves contractors who install per owner specs that are accepted | Hunt inapplicable as a bar here: no uncontroverted proof Mobile Lock simply followed mandated specs; doctrine not determinative |
| Whether plaintiff can prove proximate cause though she lacked memory of the trip | Jarosz: circumstantial evidence (location after fall, manager’s report, expert) supports an inference Mobile Lock’s doorstop caused the fall | Mobile Lock: plaintiff cannot identify what she tripped on, so no cause in fact | Proximate cause is a fact issue: circumstantial evidence suffices to create a genuine issue for the trier of fact |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Jarosz: issues of duty/breach/proximate cause preclude summary judgment | Mobile Lock: entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on duty and causation defenses | Reversed trial court’s grant of summary judgment; remanded for further proceedings on breach and causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Blasius, 74 Ill. 2d 203 (1978) (discusses contractor liability when work strictly follows an owner’s specifications)
- Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612 (1965) (rejects absolute nonliability based on lack of privity; negligence principles govern)
- Colbert v. Holland Furnace Co., 333 Ill. 78 (1928) (articulated the older general rule that an accepted contractor’s work relieved it of third-party liability)
- Mort v. Walter, 98 Ill. 2d 391 (1983) (circumstantial evidence may suffice to establish negligence and causation)