Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc.
2016 IL 120394
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Pamela Murphy-Hylton slipped on ice on a condominium sidewalk 11 days after the last snow removal; she alleged the ice resulted from defective drainage/maintenance (grading, downspouts) and sued the condominium association and its manager for negligence.
- The condominium association owned common elements; a management company was engaged to manage property and contracted for snow removal; the last contracted snow removal occurred Feb 7, 2011, the fall occurred Feb 18, 2011.
- Plaintiff’s evidence: testimony and photos showing water pooling, sidewalk graded toward grass, prior pooling in the area, and later drainage work performed; several residents observed similar pooling but none had reported it to management before the fall.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under the Snow and Ice Removal Act, which protects residential owners/agents for injuries caused by snowy/icy conditions resulting from their snow/ice removal acts or omissions, unless willful or wanton.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; the appellate court reversed, holding the Act’s immunity applies only to negligent snow/ice removal efforts and not to claims based on defective condition or negligent maintenance; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Snow and Ice Removal Act immunity | Murphy-Hylton: immunity does not apply because her claim alleges negligent maintenance/defective condition causing unnatural ice accumulation, not negligent snow-removal. | Defendants: Act immunizes residential owners/agents for injuries from icy sidewalks resulting from their acts or omissions, including failures to maintain (broad reading). | The Act immunizes only negligent acts/omissions arising from actual snow/ice removal efforts; it does not bar claims based on defective conditions or failures to maintain. |
| Whether contracting for snow removal alone triggers immunity | Plaintiff: contract does not automatically shield defendants from non-removal-based negligence. | Defendants: having a snow-removal contract demonstrates removal efforts and thus qualifies for immunity. | A contract alone does not confer immunity; immunity applies when the injury is linked to the defendant’s snow/ice removal acts or omissions. |
| Construction of a statute in derogation of common law | Murphy-Hylton: statute should be narrowly construed and not expand common-law defenses. | Defendants: statute should be read broadly to include more sources of icy accumulations. | Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly/narrowly construed; the Court declined to expand immunity beyond the statute’s plain language. |
| Applicability of summary judgment on immunity alone | Plaintiff: factual questions about defective condition/notice preclude summary judgment. | Defendants: immunity disposes of claim as a matter of law. | Court held immunity was not dispositive because plaintiff’s negligent-maintenance theory remains viable; summary judgment on immunity was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (2010) (Illinois common-law rule on natural accumulations of snow and ice and exceptions)
- Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill. 2d 133 (1953) (historic rule that landowner owes no duty to remove natural snow/ice accumulations)
- Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638 (1931) (recognition of duty when ice/snow results from artificial/unnatural causes with notice)
- Fitzsimons v. National Tea Co., 29 Ill. App. 2d 306 (1961) (liability where artificial causes produce unnatural ice accumulations)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359 (2003) (statutes derogatory of common law must be strictly construed)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (2004) (courts should limit statutes in derogation of the common law to their express language)