2019 IL App (1st) 181204
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Gordon Kasper slipped on ice covered by a thin dusting of snow near mailboxes outside his Buffalo Grove townhome on December 26, 2013, and sued Woodstone Townhome Homeowner’s Association and its snow-removal contractor McGill Management, Inc.
- Kasper alleged the ice resulted from a defective drainage/downspout or negligent maintenance by defendants causing an "unnatural accumulation" of ice.
- Woodstone contracted with McGill to plow only after snowfalls of two inches or more and to apply salt only upon Woodstone’s request; neither occurred for the snowfall(s) at issue.
- Depositions showed a thin (<1 inch) powdering of snow over ice; Kasper had seen summer runoff from a nearby downspout on prior occasions but offered no evidence of runoff or water flow at the time of his fall.
- Both defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the accumulation was natural (no liability), McGill claimed its contractual duty did not require clearing the minimal snowfall, and Woodstone noted lack of notice of any defect.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants; Kasper appealed, arguing the defective drainage theory (citing Murphy‑Hylton) and that McGill breached its mailbox-access contractual duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ice was an "unnatural accumulation" caused by defendants | Kasper: ice was likely caused by runoff from a defective downspout (unnatural accumulation) | Defendants: no evidence the ice was anything but a natural accumulation; plaintiff’s theory is speculative | Held: No genuine factual dispute—plaintiff offered only speculation, summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition | Kasper: prior observed runoff and proximity to mailboxes put defendants on notice | Defendants: no prior complaints or notice of pooling/ice at that location | Held: No evidence of notice; plaintiff did not meet burden to create triable issue |
| Whether McGill’s contract created a duty to clear the icy patch leading to liability | Kasper: contract required keeping mailboxes accessible at all times, implying duty to clear | McGill: contract limited plowing to snowfalls ≥2 inches and salt only upon request; no duty to clear here | Held: Contract interpreted as preventing snow piles blocking mailboxes, not imposing an all‑times clearing duty; no contractual breach |
| Applicability of Murphy‑Hylton (negligent maintenance/defective construction theory) | Kasper: Murphy‑Hylton permits negligent‑maintenance claims where drainage/defect causes ice | Defendants: even under that theory, plaintiff produced insufficient evidence tying ice to a defect | Held: Murphy‑Hylton not outcome‑determinative here because evidence was far weaker; summary judgment still proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (rule that landowners owe no duty to remove natural snow and ice)
- Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill. 2d 133 (no duty to remove natural accumulations)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (summary judgment is drastic; movant’s right must be clear)
- Eichler v. Pitt Theaters, Inc., 167 Ill. App. 3d 685 (discussion of contractual duty to remove snow—cases differ)
- Branson v. R & L Investment, Inc., 196 Ill. App. 3d 1088 (unnatural accumulation must be shown by identifiable cause)
- Majetich v. P.T. Ferro Construction Co., 389 Ill. App. 3d 220 (circumstantial evidence must make causation more probable than possible)
- Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc., 309 Ill. App. 3d 313 (speculation insufficient to withstand summary judgment)
- Judge‑Zeit v. General Parking Corp., 376 Ill. App. 3d 573 (mere guesswork cannot create a genuine issue of material fact)