2017 IL App (1st) 170607
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Martha Nunez sued landlord Lourdes Diaz after slipping and falling down a second‑floor wooden staircase on Oct. 3, 2013; Nunez testified the decorative cap on a newel/post at the top of the stairs came off when she grabbed it to break her fall.
- The staircase served only the second‑floor unit (Nunez’s unit); the building had separate entrances and the stairwell could be locked but generally remained unlocked.
- Lease provisions prohibited tenant alterations and assigned certain maintenance obligations to the tenant, but the landlord admitted she controlled certain aspects of the stairwell (e.g., painting, prohibiting storage, paying for the light, inspecting periodically) and said tenants could not make repairs themselves; she also testified she inspected the stairs every few months and would pay for professional repairs.
- Nunez’s deposition: cap had been loose for some time; her husband told defendant’s brother (property manager) about it before the fall. Defendant denied receiving notice and said she had never had to repair the cap.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no duty because the stairwell was the tenant’s area and not under defendant’s control, and (2) no evidence of a dangerous condition or notice; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a dangerous condition (loose cap on newel/post) | The unsecured cap at the top post made the stairway unreasonably dangerous; wood steps were slippery and cap came off when grabbed. | Staircase not inherently dangerous and no pleaded claim specifically about the cap; only alleged lack of handrail. | Court: Question of fact exists whether the loose cap was a dangerous condition; summary judgment improper. |
| Notice (actual or constructive) | Plaintiff’s husband notified defendant’s brother about the loose cap before the fall; cap may have been loose long before move‑in. | Defendant denied receiving any notice from her brother and testified she never observed a problem. | Court: Existence of actual or constructive notice is a question of fact for the trier of fact. |
| Duty (whether landlord retained control of stairwell) | Defendant exercised control (paid for light, inspected periodically, prohibited tenant alterations, would hire/pay for repairs), so she owed a duty. | Stairway served only the second‑floor unit and primarily functioned as tenant’s premises; lease silent on stair maintenance, so control lies with tenant. | Court: Facts are disputed about control/assumption of maintenance; issue for the jury — summary judgment on duty inappropriate. |
| Proximate cause (whether cap caused injuries) | Nunez grabbed the post to stop her fall and the cap came off in her hand, causing/ contributing to the fall. | Plaintiff did not know what caused her to slip initially; no competent evidence linking defendant’s conduct to the fall. | Court: Plaintiff’s testimony that the cap came off when she grabbed it raises a factual issue on proximate cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (Illinois 2004) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in favor of nonmovant)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (Illinois 1992) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (Illinois 2004) (duty is a question of law; breach and causation are questions of fact)
- Gula v. Gawel, 71 Ill. App. 2d 174 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966) (factors showing landlord control of a stairway create factual issue for trier of fact)
- Seago v. Roy, 97 Ill. App. 3d 6 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (stairway exclusively serving a tenant may be tenant’s responsibility; limited landlord acts insufficient to show control)