Schade v. Clausius
48 N.E.3d 707
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Lana Schade, a guest on defendants' boat, alleges negligence for injuries from a slip on the swim platform.
- The swim platform could lower to allow a tender to board, and water could accumulate on its surface.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted it, holding the condition open and obvious.
- Plaintiff argued genuine issues existed about dangerous condition, duty to create or warn, and crowded platform.
- Evidence showed the platform was used for swimming and tender access; plaintiff slipped while moving on crowded platform.
- The case falls under admiralty/maritime law; federal law governs duty and open-and-obvious analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendants unreasonably create a dangerous condition? | Schade argues crowding and water made the platform dangerous. | Clausiius contends no unreasonably created danger; platform open and obvious. | No genuine issue; no breach; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Was there a duty to warn about the platform's wet/open condition? | Warn about slippery surface due to water amid crowding. | No duty to warn for open and obvious conditions. | No duty to warn; open and obvious conditions negate warning duty. |
| Does distraction exception apply to open and obvious danger? | Distraction could cause failure to notice wet surface while crowded. | Distraction doctrine does not apply; no evidence of forgetfulness or distraction under maritime context. | Distraction exception does not apply; analysis ends with open-and-obvious finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982) (maritime duty to exercise reasonable care; federal framework)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959) (duty to protect passengers under maritime law)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (negligence proof under maritime law; proximate cause standards)
- Jackson v. TLC Associates, Inc., 185 Ill. 2d 418 (1998) (premises-liability duty analysis for open-and-obvious dangers)
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435 (1996) (four-factor test for open-and-obvious dangers; duty considerations)
- Duffy v. Togher, 382 Ill. App. 3d 1 (2008) (summary-judgment standards; strict record construction favoring nonmovant)
- Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 226 Ill. 2d 307 (2007) (summary judgment standard; clear right to judgment)
- Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990) (premises liability distraction analysis; foreseeability and duty factors)
- Lancaster v. Carnival Corp., 2015 WL 545499 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (distinguishes open-and-obvious crowd in cruise context; not controlling here)