Tilschner v. Spangler, 949 N.E.2d 688

Patricia Tilschner, plaintiff, was injured at a party hosted by defendant Spangler when Ruppel ignited fireworks on Spangler's property.
Count II of the third-amended complaint alleged negligence by Spangler under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 318.
Spangler moved to dismiss Count II under 735 ILCS 5/2-615; the trial court granted with prejudice.
Patricia appealed after denial of relief and after dismissal of Count II and related motions.
The central issue is whether Illinois has adopted Restatement § 318, creating a duty to control third parties in certain situations.
The appellate court reviews a 2-615 dismissal de novo and remits to determine if §318 is adopted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Illinois adopted Restatement § 318.	Tilschner asserts Illinois adoption of §318.	Spangler argues §318 not adopted in Illinois.	No adoption; Count II fails.
Whether Patricia's complaint states a duty under §318.	Complaint alleges duty under §318.	No duty recognized by Illinois Supreme Court via §318.	Cannot state a cognizable §318 duty; dismissal affirmed.

Zimring v. Wendrow, 137 Ill. App. 3d 847 (1985) (no Illinois case has adopted §318)
Elizondo v. Ramirez, 324 Ill. App. 3d 67 (2001) (unclear if §318 adopted; declined to decide)
Cravens v. Inman, 223 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (1991) (discussed adoption context; not controlling for §318 here)
Teter v. Clemens, 112 Ill. 2d 252 (1986) (discussed limits of adopting Restatement sections)
Estate of Johnson v. Condell Mem. Hosp., 119 Ill. 2d 496 (1988) (discusses sections 315-319 as special relationships; not necessarily §318 adoption)
Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Ctr., 117 Ill. 2d 507 (1987) (noting sections 316-319 concept; not applying §318 adoption)
Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 361 Ill. App. 3d 32 (2005) (discusses adoption of Restatement sections; not dispositive for §318)
Iseberg v. Gross, 366 Ill. App. 3d 857 (2006) (acknowledges Restatement discussion; §318 not adopted)