Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc.
2016 IL 120394
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Pamela Murphy-Hylton slipped on ice on a condominium sidewalk 11 days after a >20-inch snowstorm; she alleged the ice resulted from defective drainage/maintenance and sued the condominium association (Klein Creek) and its manager (Lieberman).
- Last contracted snow/ice removal occurred February 7; plaintiff fell February 18; she and neighbors testified water pooled and froze along the sidewalk due to grading/downspout/drainage issues.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent maintenance/defective condition (improper grading, downspouts, drainage) that produced an unnatural ice accumulation; she did not report the condition before the fall.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under the Snow and Ice Removal Act (745 ILCS 75/1–2), arguing it shields residential owners/agents for injuries resulting from their snow/ice removal efforts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment (following an appellate district view broadly construing the Act); the appellate court reversed, holding the Act’s immunity covers negligent snow/ice removal efforts but not negligent maintenance or defective-condition claims unrelated to removal efforts.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: the Act immunizes negligent snow/ice removal (including omissions in removal), but does not bar negligence claims alleging defective premises or failure to maintain that cause unnatural ice accumulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Snow and Ice Removal Act immunity — does it bar defective-condition/maintenance claims that cause ice? | Murphy-Hylton: Act only protects negligent snow/ice removal; it does not bar claims that ice resulted from defective drainage/maintenance. | Lieberman/Klein Creek: Act immunizes residential owners/agents for injuries "due to" icy sidewalks — should cover negligence in maintenance as part of omissions. | The Act protects negligent acts/omissions arising from snow/ice removal efforts only; it does not immunize negligent maintenance or defective-condition claims that produce unnatural accumulations. |
| Does contracting for snow removal alone establish immunity under the Act? | N/A (issue raised by defendants) | Defendants: having a contract for snow removal is prima facie evidence of snow/ice removal efforts, so immunity applies. | Contract alone does not automatically confer immunity; immunity applies when the injury stems from removal efforts or omissions in those efforts, not merely from having a contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill.2d 215 (establishes common-law rule limiting duty to remove natural snow/ice)
- Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill.2d 133 (early articulation of no duty for natural accumulations)
- Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638 (landowner duty for unnatural accumulations with notice)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill.2d 359 (statutes in derogation of common law must be strictly construed)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill.2d 32 (limit changes to common law to statute’s express language)