Lucasey v. Plattner, 28 N.E.3d 1046

Plaintiff (a long‑time real‑estate appraiser) visited defendants’ home to measure exterior dimensions for a bank appraisal and entered the backyard in January 2011. Snow covered the ground and the top of a retaining wall.
Plaintiff had seen the retaining wall before the accident and acknowledged the drop could cause injury, but while slowly measuring with a tape and watching the tape, he stepped off the top and fell about 5½ feet, suffering a compression fracture.
Plaintiff sued defendants for negligence, alleging failure to provide a guard/barrier required by building codes and failure to warn, plus that defendants should have foreseen invitees would be distracted or compelled to encounter the hazard.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the drop was an open‑and‑obvious danger and neither the distraction nor deliberate‑encounter exceptions applied; plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit invoking building‑code violations.
The trial court struck the expert affidavit for noncompliance with Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(a) (no supporting documents attached) and granted summary judgment, finding the hazard open and obvious and no applicable exception; plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of expert affidavit under Rule 191(a)	Peterson’s affidavit was sufficient; relied on materials elsewhere in the record and public codes	Affidavit failed Rule 191(a) because relied‑upon documents/codes were not attached	Affidavit properly struck for noncompliance with strict Rule 191(a) requirements
Whether the retaining wall was an open‑and‑obvious danger	The question should go to a jury because snow/lighting obscured the edge	Condition was open and obvious as a matter of law; plaintiff appreciated the risk	Open and obvious as a matter of law; plaintiff had seen and appreciated the drop
Applicability of the distraction exception	Appraisal work distracted plaintiff and made the risk foreseeable to defendants	Plaintiff’s difficulty was self‑created/caused by natural conditions and under his control	Distraction exception inapplicable—plaintiff was not distracted in the legal sense; he was actively looking and in control of the measuring task
Applicability of the deliberate‑encounter exception	Economic necessity of completing the appraisal compelled plaintiff to encounter the danger	Plaintiff chose time and method of appraisal; risk could be avoided by simple precautions	Deliberate‑encounter exception inapplicable—no economic compulsion that left no reasonable alternative

Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (affidavits in summary‑judgment context must strictly comply with Rule 191)
Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (open‑and‑obvious doctrine and duty analysis factors)
LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (deliberate‑encounter exception; economic compulsion context)
Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435 (open‑and‑obvious rationale that persons are expected to appreciate and avoid obvious risks)
Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (distraction exception overview)
Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc., 405 Ill. App. 3d 14 (distinguishing cases where poor visibility creates a factual dispute on obviousness)
Preze v. Borden Chemical, Inc., 336 Ill. App. 3d 52 (failure to attach relied‑upon documents to affidavit is fatal)