2019 IL App (3d) 180132
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Pottsie’s Place is a bar with an outdoor beer garden that contained a wall‑mounted gas heater installed at torso height near picnic tables; manufacturer’s manual warned the heater should not be placed where people could walk near it.
- A legible sign posted above the heater warned patrons it was hot; plaintiff Jeffrey Smith acknowledged he had seen and understood that sign on multiple prior visits.
- On December 2, 2014, while intoxicated and without a coat, Smith stood/backed toward the heater to warm up and leaned back to scratch his shoulder; his flannel shirt contacted the heater, ignited, and he was injured.
- Smith sued for negligence/premises liability, alleging inadequate warning and negligent installation; Pottsie’s moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the heater’s manual did not create a separate actionable duty and Smith was on notice of the hazard and acted voluntarily; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pottsie’s owed a duty to provide additional warnings or safeguards beyond the posted sign | Smith: Pottsie’s negligently installed heater where patrons could touch it and owed further protection/warning | Pottsie’s: posted clear warning and the hazard was open and obvious, so no additional duty | Affirmed: No additional duty; posted warning discharged duty |
| Whether an exception to the open‑and‑obvious rule (deliberate‑encounter) applies | Smith: had a reason to encounter the heater, so exception should apply | Pottsie’s: no economic/compelling reason; Smith voluntarily chose to back into heater | Denied: deliberate‑encounter does not apply (no compelling reason/no lack of alternatives) |
| Whether the distraction exception to open‑and‑obvious applies (intoxication) | Smith: Pottsie’s should have foreseen intoxicated patrons may be distracted and forget the hazard | Pottsie’s: intoxication is a self‑created, internal distraction and not a foreseeable external distraction; no evidence staff observed impairment | Denied: intoxication here is self‑created and not a foreseeable external distraction; no evidence staff knew he was intoxicated |
| Whether the heater manual created an independent duty to relocate or redesign the heater | Smith: manual warned against placement where people could walk near it, creating a duty | Pottsie’s: even if installation contradicted manual, an adequate posted warning rendered the condition reasonably safe | Denied: manual did not create an actionable duty under these facts; warning rendered condition reasonably safe |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (Ill. 1998) (sets duty factors and applies Restatement §343/§343A framework)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2002) (explains when possessor should anticipate harm despite known/obvious danger)
- Ward v. K Mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (Ill. 1990) (an adequate warning can render a maintained dangerous condition reasonably safe)
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park Dist., 171 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1996) (open‑and‑obvious condition decreases foreseeability of harm)
- Deibert v. Bauer Bros. Constr. Co., Inc., 141 Ill. 2d 430 (Ill. 1990) (adopts Restatement §343A rule on known or obvious hazards)
- Morrissey v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC, 404 Ill. App. 3d 711 (Ill. App. 2010) (applies premises liability foreseeability analysis)