Linh Phung Hoang Nguyen v. Nhutam Lam, 90 N.E.3d 550

Defendants (Nhutam and Hung Lam) owned and maintained a Chicago residential property with a backyard catch basin and metal lid; they lived there 1989–2010 and had the basin cleaned only once in 1992.
Plaintiff was injured in August 2014 when the catch basin lid flipped upright as she stepped on it, causing a fall and a vulvar hematoma that required surgery.
Photographs taken immediately after the accident showed a rusted, deteriorated lid, a corroded concrete lip inside the basin, and cracked/deteriorated concrete around the basin.
Mr. Lam admitted he had not inspected or maintained the catch basin or lid since 1992 and had walked and stood on it over the years but never observed a problem.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive notice; the trial court struck plaintiff’s videotape for lack of foundation and granted summary judgment, citing Zameer and plaintiff’s lack of expert proof on duration of the defect.
The appellate court reversed, holding the testimony and photographs created a genuine factual dispute as to whether the condition existed long enough to impute constructive notice without expert testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the catch basin	The rusted lid and corroded/cracked concrete shown in photos and Mr. Lam’s admission of no inspection for 22 years allow a jury to infer the defect existed long enough for constructive notice	Photographs alone do not prove how long the defect existed; without evidence of duration there is no constructive notice	Reversed: photos + testimony raised a genuine issue of fact about duration such that constructive notice could be inferred by a jury
Whether plaintiff was required to present expert testimony on how long the defect existed	Expert testimony was not required; lay jurors can reasonably infer gradual deterioration from photos and common knowledge about corrosion	Plaintiff needed expert proof to establish duration of the defect	Rejected: expert testimony not required at summary judgment; lay inference about gradual corrosion is permissible

Baker v. Granite City, 311 Ill. App. 586 (1941) (rust and corrosion on a catch-basin cover may indicate gradual deterioration and is for the jury to decide whether defendant had constructive notice)
Pittman v. City of Chicago, 38 Ill. App. 3d 1036 (1976) (photographs plus longstanding use can support an inference of constructive notice)
Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill. 2d 428 (2011) (summary judgment procedural standards; plaintiffs need not prove their case at summary judgment)
Seitz-Partridge v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 409 Ill. App. 3d 76 (2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Chapman v. Foggy, 59 Ill. App. 3d 552 (1978) (landowner duty to discover and remedy or warn of dangerous conditions; constructive notice when defect existed long enough to be discoverable)
Guenther v. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc., 27 Ill. App. 3d 214 (1975) (duration-of-defect is a jury question)
AYH Holdings, Inc. v. Avreco, Inc., 357 Ill. App. 3d 17 (2005) (summary judgment principles; court may not weigh evidence)