Kleiber v. Freeport Farm and Fleet, Inc.
406 Ill. App. 3d 249
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Kleiber sues Freeport Farm & Fleet for injuries from falling through holes in an empty pallet outside the Morton store while loading topsoil.
- Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing no evidence of property defect, plaintiff contributory fault, and that the danger was open and obvious.
- Plaintiff testified she saw the pallet and holes, did not seek assistance, and fell while crossing the empty pallet to access topsoil.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff appealed.
- Appellate court held no genuine issue of material fact on either distraction or deliberate-encounter exceptions and affirmed summary judgment; concurring/dissenting opinions discuss whether those exceptions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty existence given open and obvious danger | Kleiber argues exceptions apply and duty exists. | Freeport contends no duty due to open/obvious danger and no applicable exception. | No duty as a matter of law; open/obvious danger with no applicable exception. |
| Distraction exception applicability | Distraction could prevent noticing the holes. | No evidence of distraction; plaintiff looked ahead and was not distracted. | Distraction exception does not apply;不可 foreseeability found. |
| Deliberate-encounter exception applicability | Plaintiff could deliberately encounter the hazard for convenience; defendant should foresee this. | No reasonable option to avoid danger; no economic or other compelling reason to encounter. | Deliberate-encounter exception does not apply; no duty found. |
| Foreseeability and duty factors | Warns of risk given conditions and proximity to building; hazard foreseeable. | Open/obvious nature limits foreseeability; burden to prevent is high. | Four-factor test weighs against imposing duty; no duty found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill.2d 132 (1990) (open/obvious rule exceptions analyzed; foreseeability framework)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill.2d 380 (1998) (distraction and deliberate-encounter analyses clarified)
- True v. Greenwood Manor West, Inc., 316 Ill. App.3d 676 (2000) (illustrates distraction/exceptions context)
- Simmons v. American Drug Stores, Inc., 329 Ill.App.3d 38 (2002) (foreseeability and duty under Premises Liability Act)
- Buerkett v. Illinois Power Co., 384 Ill.App.3d 418 (2008) (distraction and deliberate-encounter analysis in duty)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill.2d 470 (2004) (summary judgment standard and appellate review framework)