Rozowicz v. C3 Presents, LLC
95 N.E.3d 1277
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- C3 leased Grant Park for Lollapalooza 2011 and bore duty to ensure attendee safety.
- Rozowicz slipped on mud while exiting the festival; the ground was muddy due to rain.
- She alleged multiple failures by C3, including lighting, mats, crowd management, and safe egress.
- C3 moved for summary judgment arguing no duty, no unreasonable risk, no notice, and open/obvious mud.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; the appellate court affirms, finding mud open and obvious and no duty.
- Key issue is whether C3 owed a duty to provide a safe egress given open/obvious mud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did C3 owe Rozowicz a duty to provide safe egress? | Rozowicz contends duty existed due to open/obvious hazard and unsafe exit route. | C3 argues no duty since mud was open/obvious and exit path was adequate. | No duty found; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Is mud open and obvious to negate duty under Restatement §343A? | Mud was dangerous and foreseeably risky despite obviousness. | Mud was open/obvious; patrons could protect themselves. | Mud open and obvious; no duty established. |
| Do distraction or deliberate encounter exceptions render a duty in open/obvious conditions? | Distraction and deliberate encounter exceptions apply, creating duty. | Exceptions do not apply given plaintiff's awareness and available alternatives. | Both exceptions do not apply; no duty. |
| Should the court consider four-factor duty analysis after open/obvious finding? | Burden to prevent mud hazards in open park is feasible. | Imposing guard against mud is impracticable given open/obvious condition. | Open/obvious condition weighs against duty; burden deemed impracticable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2012) (summary judgment standard; proponent must show no genuine issue)
- Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2015) (drives de novo review of summary judgment)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2010) (duty analysis factors for premises liability)
- Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill. 2d 456 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1976) (foreseeability and duty framework for premises liability)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1998) (foreseeability and duty principles in products/land contexts)
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2014) (open and obvious doctrine and its exceptions)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2002) (deliberate encounter and distraction concepts in open/obvious duty analysis)
- Ward v. K Mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1990) (definition of open and obvious condition and duties of landowners)
- Prostran v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. App. 3d 81 (Illinois Appellate Court, 2004) (open and obvious condition and associated duty analysis)
- Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 39 (Illinois Appellate Court, 2009) (general duty to provide reasonably safe ingress/egress)