Rommel v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority
996 N.E.2d 77
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Five consolidated wrongful-death/personal-injury actions arose from two-car head-on collisions on I-90 where vehicles crossed a 50-foot grassy median and struck oncoming traffic.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (Authority) should have installed barriers, altered median slope/shape, or posted warnings, and that Authority’s maintenance made the median less recoverable.
- Plaintiffs obtained interlocutory review under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308; this court answered two certified questions in Rommel I, holding the Authority owed no duty to prevent crossover collisions and the Tollway Act imposed no such statutory duty.
- On remand the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaints, applying Rommel I and concluding the Authority had no duty even for alleged negligent maintenance that facilitated crossovers.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing Rommel I should be revisited (citing Simpkins) and that negligent maintenance and voluntary undertaking claims survive; the appellate court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Authority owes common-law duty to correct/repair/improve median to prevent crossover collisions | Authority had notice of crossovers and should have duty to prevent them | No duty exists beyond keeping the traveled way reasonably safe; medians need not be safe for driving | No duty; Rommel I controls — medians are not required to be maintained as drivable areas |
| Whether Tollway Act imposes statutory duty to prevent crossovers | Act authorizes safety measures and should be read to impose a duty | Act does not impose a duty; it authorizes but does not require or specify manner | No statutory duty under the Act to prevent crossover collisions |
| Whether Rommel I’s holding is displaced by Simpkins or otherwise palpably erroneous | Simpkins changed duty analysis and requires revisiting Rommel I | Simpkins addresses different facts (third-party asbestos exposure) and does not alter Rommel I; Rommel I follows DiBenedetto | Rommel I stands; neither exception to law-of-the-case (higher court reversal or palpable error) applies |
| Whether negligent maintenance or voluntary undertaking claims survive despite Rommel I | Maintenance that changed slope/surface and reduced vehicle recovery can create liability; voluntary undertaking may impose duty | Even maintained medians facilitating crossovers do not give rise to liability unless the highway itself is rendered unreasonably dangerous by an improvement; maintenance/improvement claims were subsumed by Rommel I | Dismissal affirmed: plaintiffs failed to plead a duty; negligent maintenance/voluntary undertaking claims do not overcome Rommel I |
Key Cases Cited
- DiBenedetto v. Flora Township, 153 Ill. 2d 66 (Ill. 1992) (township owed no duty to make a drainage ditch safe for vehicular traffic)
- Rommel v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 405 Ill. App. 3d 1124 (2d Dist. 2010) (Rommel I) (appellate answers that Tollway owed no duty to prevent crossover collisions and no statutory duty under Tollway Act)
- Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662 (Ill. 2012) (reaffirmed general duty factors but concerned third-party exposure, not directly contrary to Rommel I)
- Washington v. City of Chicago, 188 Ill. 2d 235 (Ill. 1999) (discusses duty factors used in roadway-maintenance cases)
- Knight v. City of Chicago, 298 Ill. App. 3d 797 (1st Dist. 1998) (city had no duty to maintain medians so they were safe for vehicles leaving the roadway)
- Ross v. City of Chicago, 168 Ill. App. 3d 83 (1st Dist. 1988) (liability attaches only where improvements directly render the street unreasonably dangerous)