2017 IL App (1st) 161177
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Rozowicz slipped and fractured her ankle while exiting the 2011 Lollapalooza festival at Grant Park after hours of rain left grounds muddy; she was an invitee and wore flip-flops.
- C3 Presents leased Grant Park and agreed to "take all actions necessary to ensure the safety of Festival attendees," including determining entrances and exits.
- Plaintiff walked with a crowd through a tree-lined, muddy, uphill area toward an exit; she testified the mud alone caused her fall and that she had seen many people slip that day.
- C3’s production director identified an illuminated concrete stairway/path a few feet from where Rozowicz fell and marked the landscaped area she used as an intended pedestrian route (not a formal exit).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for C3, reasoning the mud was an open and obvious condition and C3 had provided a safe means of egress; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether C3 owed a duty to protect invitees from the muddy condition that caused the fall | C3 had duty to provide safe egress and created unreasonable risk by directing/allowing patrons to exit over muddy, poorly lit, tree-filled terrain | Mud was an open and obvious natural condition after rain; C3 provided reasonable egress (concrete path/illuminated stairs) and thus owed no duty | No duty: mud was open and obvious; C3 provided a safe alternative egress; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the distraction exception to the open-and-obvious rule applies | Rozowicz claimed stage lighting, crowding, pushing, and music distracted her so she wouldn’t notice the danger | Plaintiff testified she was looking down, walking cautiously, and aware of mud—no evidence of actual distraction | Exception did not apply; plaintiff was not actually distracted |
| Whether the deliberate-encounter exception applies (compulsion to use the dangerous route) | Plaintiff argued patrons were forced/compelled to use the western egress despite its risks because that was where crowd flowed | C3 points to available designated concrete exit routes and that plaintiff chose to follow the crowd rather than being compelled | Exception did not apply; reasonable people would not prefer muddy route over available concrete exits |
| Whether public-policy/factual burdens weigh in favor of imposing duty to guard against mud | Plaintiff: C3 could/should have mitigated hazards or rerouted patrons | C3: preventing mud in an outdoor park after rain is impracticable and burdensome; risk was obvious | Court: burden of guarding against rain/mud is significant and unjustified given obviousness; factors weigh against imposing duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341 (discussing summary judgment standard)
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (open-and-obvious doctrine and exceptions)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (distraction and deliberate-encounter exceptions to open-and-obvious rule)
- Prostran v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. App. 3d 81 (availability of alternative routes and foreseeability)
- Keating v. 68th & Paxton, L.L.C., 401 Ill. App. 3d 456 (elements of negligence claim)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (factors for duty analysis)
- Waters v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL App (1st) 100759 (no duty where condition open and obvious)