2018 IL App (1st) 180582
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Sharon Jordan slipped on black ice on an access ramp outside a Food 4 Less store and fractured her ankle on November 12, 2013.
- Food 4 Less had a contract with Cherry Logistics, which contracted with Pete’s Lawn Care to provide snow/ice removal per specified terms (monitoring, salting, handicap ramp attention, timing tied to accumulation/conditions).
- Pete’s Lawn Care did not perform any snow or ice removal at the site before Jordan’s fall; Jordan did not know of the contracts and was not told to rely on them.
- Jordan sued Food 4 Less and Pete’s Lawn Care for negligence, alleging defendants undertook contractual duties to remove ice and therefore owed third-party duties.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Jordan appealed challenging (1) that the contract created a duty to remove natural accumulations and (2) that Pete’s duties were triggered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering a snow/ice removal contract creates a tort duty to remove natural accumulations to third parties | Jordan: the contracts created an undertaking that imposed a duty to remove all ice, so defendants are liable for failing to do so | Defendants: natural-accumulation rule bars liability; mere contract alone (without performance or reliance) does not create duty to third parties | Court: No—mere existence of contract does not create a duty to third parties to remove natural accumulations absent personal reliance |
| Whether liability can be based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (voluntary undertaking) | Jordan: § 324A(c) (reliance) applies because contracting parties relied on each other and plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary | Defendants: (a) and (b) subsections don't apply; plaintiff neither relied nor shows reliance sufficient to impose § 324A liability | Court: Only § 324A(c) could apply, but Jordan showed no personal reliance; reliance by contracting parties does not impose tort duty to plaintiff here |
| Whether Pete’s contractual duties were triggered before the fall | Jordan: terms obligated Pete’s to monitor and act when slippery conditions existed | Defendants: Pete’s did not perform services before the fall and no evidence contract was triggered | Court: No need to decide in detail because plaintiff failed to show duty or reliance; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (2010) (reaffirmed the natural-accumulation rule precluding duty to remove ordinary snow and ice)
- Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority, 78 Ill. 2d 204 (1979) (party who contracts to provide protective services may create reliance-based duty under Restatement § 324A(c))
- Scott & Fetzer Co. v. Montgomery Ward Co., 112 Ill. 2d 378 (1986) (contracted service provider owed duty to third parties based on tenant’s reasonable reliance)
- Eichler v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 167 Ill. App. 3d 685 (1988) (applied Pippin/Scott in a slip-and-fall context to allow third-party claims where contractual reliance was found)
- McBride v. Taxman Corp., 327 Ill. App. 3d 992 (2002) (refused to impose liability on snow-removal contractor for natural accumulations absent evidence of negligent removal or unnatural accumulation)