Lewis v. Heartland Food Corp.
17 N.E.3d 219
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Lewis filed suit in 2011 against Heartland, Burger King Corp., and Burger King No. 1250 for iPhone theft at a Chicago BK restaurant.
- Plaintiff alleged lack of manned security and breach of duties to exercise ordinary care and provide security, plus notices of surveillance positions.
- Trial court granted motions to strike punitive damages prayer and dismissed Burger King No. 1250; Heartland and BKC moved to dismiss under 2-615.
- Appeal argued for reversal/remand; Lewis, a pro se plaintiff, offered limited cohesive argument; appellate review rights discussed.
- Court analyzed duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, invoking Restatement 344 and cases on special relationships.
- Court affirmed dismissal, finding no duty owed by Heartland or franchisor Burger King to protect against theft of plaintiff’s property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty exists to protect against theft by third parties | Lewis contends defendants owed security duties. | Heartland/BKC argue no duty absent a special relationship. | No duty; claim failed. |
| Whether a special relationship exists to create duty | Lewis cites business invitor/invitee relationship. | No special relationship between franchisor/invitee. | No special relationship; no duty. |
| Whether franchisor had a voluntary undertaking to provide security | Franchisor failed to undertake security obligations. | No voluntary undertaking established. | No voluntary undertaking; no duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard, 125 Ill.2d 203 (1988) (special relationship needed for third-party criminal acts)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422 (2006) (duty analysis requires breach and harm; limits on third-party risk)
- Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass’n, 195 Ill.2d 210 (2000) (Restatement 344-based duty to invitees restricted to physical harm)
- Mulligan v. Crescent Plumbing Supply Co., 845 S.W.2d 589 (1993) (limits duty to property loss; special facts not extending to theft)
- Castro v. Brown's Chicken & Pasta, Inc., 314 Ill. App.3d 542 (2000) (no duty absent special relationship or voluntary undertaking)
- Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488 (2011) (procedural requirements for appellate briefs; forfeiture rule)