Lee v. Lee, 149 N.E.3d 551

Plaintiff Kun Mook and Pastor Jang went uninvited to defendant Young Rok’s house to cut a large tree limb; Pastor Jang brought equipment, Young Rok did not supply the equipment but was on the property and told them not to proceed, then assisted.
The men lashed two smaller ladders together, propped the top ladder against the very limb to be cut, and Kun Mook climbed ~20–25 feet wearing dress shoes while holding an electric chainsaw and cut the 8–12-inch limb, then fell and suffered life‑threatening injuries.
Kun Mook sued Young Rok in negligence (later adding Pastor Jang); Young Rok asserted contributory negligence and, later, an open‑and‑obvious defense. A good‑faith settlement was made with Pastor Jang.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Young Rok; plaintiffs appealed, arguing the open‑and‑obvious doctrine does not apply to ordinary‑negligence claims and the court improperly required him to meet a premises‑liability defense.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the open‑and‑obvious rule applies to negligence claims where landowner/invitee facts exist, no exception applied here, the danger was not foreseeable as it arose from ‘‘freakish’’ conduct, and plaintiff was more than 50% at fault and assumed the risk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the open‑and‑obvious rule apply to ordinary negligence claims?	Lee: Open‑and‑obvious applies only to premises‑liability, not ordinary negligence.	Young Rok: The doctrine applies to negligence when landowner/invitee relationship exists.	The court: Applies to negligence and premises cases; Ward and later cases support application.
Was Young Rok under a duty to protect Plaintiff?	Lee: Alleged landowner had duty to provide safe tools, supervision, and equipment.	Young Rok: No duty if hazard was open and obvious.	The court: No duty due to open‑and‑obvious condition; thus no liability.
Do exceptions (distraction or deliberate encounter) save Plaintiff?	Lee: (argued) exceptions could apply to defeat open‑and‑obvious bar.	Young Rok: No applicable exception; plaintiff plainly saw and proceeded.	The court: No exception applied—plaintiff was not distracted and did not face a reasonable utility/risk tradeoff.
Even if duty existed, is plaintiff barred by fault/foreseeability/assumption of risk?	Lee: Recovery should be allowed based on negligence claim.	Young Rok: Injuries were unforeseeable, plaintiff >50% at fault and assumed the risk.	The court: Injuries were not reasonably foreseeable given ‘‘freakish’’ conduct; plaintiff was more than 50% at fault and assumed the risk—so recovery barred.

Ward v. K Mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (Ill. 1990) (adopted Restatement §343 and the open‑and‑obvious exception to landowner duty)
Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (Ill. 2014) (applied open‑and‑obvious rule in negligence/common‑law duty context)
Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662 (Ill. 2012) (four‑factor relationship‑induced duty test: foreseeability, likelihood, burden of guarding, consequences of imposing burden)
Monson v. City of Danville, 2018 IL 122486 (Ill. 2018) (summary judgment standards and strict construction against movant)
Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 154 (Ill. 2007) (summary judgment proper if plaintiff cannot establish any element of cause of action)
Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1981) (abolished contributory negligence in favor of comparative fault; later codified/modified by statute)