Rommel v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 405 Ill. App. 3d 1124

Plaintiffs sues ISTHA (and Moncada-Jaime for Rommel) over injuries from tollway accidents allegedly caused by wide, pitched grassy medians.
Plaintiffs contend ISTHA had a duty to correct or improve medians to prevent crossover collisions, on notice of such accidents.
Circuit court certified two questions under Rule 308: common-law duty to fix crossovers; statutory duty under Toll Highway Act.
Illinois Supreme Court precedent in DiBenedetto v. Flora Township is invoked to analyze duty regarding roadside hazards.
Court adheres to DiBenedetto, holding no duty beyond maintaining traveled way; rejects business-invitee standard for ISTHA.
Court answers both certified questions in the negative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to prevent crossover crashes (common law) by ISTHA	Rommel argues ISTHA's duty extends to medians to avoid crossovers.	ISTHA asserts no duty beyond keeping traveled way reasonably safe per DiBenedetto.	Negative; no common-law duty recognized.
Statutory duty under Toll Highway Act to prevent crossover crashes	ISTHA's statutory provisions create a duty to prevent crossovers.	Statute authorizes funding and maintenance, not a specific duty to prevent crossovers.	Negative; no statutory duty recognized.

DiBenedetto v. Flora Township, 153 Ill.2d 66 (Ill. 1992) (no duty to keep shoulders/ditches safe beyond traveled way)
Kalata v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 144 Ill.2d 425 (Ill. 1991) (statutory violation as prima facie evidence of negligence when designed to protect life/property)
Washington v. City of Chicago, 188 Ill.2d 235 (Ill. 1999) (duty analysis factors include foreseeability and burden of imposing duty)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coe, 367 Ill.App.3d 604 (Ill. App.3d 2006) (out-of-state authority not binding where Illinois Supreme Court has spoken)
Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill.2d 132 (Ill. 1990) (business owner duty to invitees discussed)