2016 IL App (1st) 152923
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Sharon Jones was injured in a fall after a concert “crowd surge” at the United Center during a Live Nation–promoted Kanye West/Jay Z show; she sued Live Nation (promoter) and United Center JV (venue owner) for negligence.
- Jones alleged performers encouraged the audience to leave seats and move toward the stage, producing chaotic aisles and a crowd surge that caused her to be knocked down steps.
- Jones served interrogatories asking Live Nation to identify lawsuits/claims arising from similar performance events; a trial court ordered narrowed production, Live Nation sought reconsideration, and the production order was appealed.
- While the interlocutory appeal over discovery was pending, Live Nation moved for summary judgment asserting no duty (no employer/agency relationship with performers and no possession/control of the injury area under the venue rental agreement). A different trial judge granted summary judgment for Live Nation.
- This court had earlier affirmed the discovery order (compelling Live Nation to produce claim information relevant to foreseeability/notice) and vacated contempt/fines; after that Rule 23 order, the trial court denied Jones’s motion to reconsider summary judgment.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of reconsideration, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow discovery ordered by the appellate court to proceed and by deciding duty without evidence that the discovery could have provided (notice/foreseeability). Case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Live Nation owed Jones a duty of care (premises liability/other special relationship) | Live Nation promoted the event, invited attendees, and may have had notice that performers would induce crowd movement; thus duty existed (invitee/possessor or by creating foreseeable risk) | No duty: Live Nation lacked possession/control of the injured area under the rental agreement and did not employ or control performers (no respondeat superior) | Reversed denial of reconsideration — genuine issue of material fact on duty; duty determination premature without discovery on notice/foreseeability |
| Whether Live Nation had notice/knowledge of similar incidents (foreseeability) | Interrogatories seeking prior claims/claims data were directly relevant to notice/foreseeability and necessary to oppose summary judgment | Interrogatories were overbroad and unduly burdensome; claims are public record and production would be massive burden | Appellate court previously ordered production as relevant; trial court improperly foreclosed that discovery before deciding summary judgment; discovery could create genuine issue on foreseeability |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate during pendency of interlocutory appeal on discovery | Jones argued summary judgment should await the appellate discovery ruling because the compelled discovery could supply material facts on notice and duty | Live Nation argued discovery would not change contract-based allocation of control or its responsibilities under the rental agreement | Trial court erred by resolving duty without allowing ordered discovery to proceed; trial court abused discretion in refusing reconsideration after appellate order |
| Whether Jones waived arguments on reconsideration by not raising them earlier | Jones promptly informed trial court of the appellate order and argued discovery altered the record; thus no improper delay | Live Nation argued Jones raised new theories/late evidence and waived them | Court rejected waiver argument given prompt notice of appellate discovery ruling and that the rental agreement does not bind nonparty plaintiff; discretion was abused in refusing reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Chicago Youth Center, 224 Ill. 2d 213 (summary judgment standard)
- Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662 (duty analysis and four-factor relationship test)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (possessor’s duty to invitees)
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247 (weight given to legal factors in duty/proximate cause analysis)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. EEOC, 534 U.S. 279 (contract cannot bind a nonparty)