Van Gelderen v. Hokin
958 N.E.2d 1029
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Donald Van Gelderen slipped when exiting via defendant's side door, falling down the basement stairs located immediately behind the door.
- The side entrance opens inward; the stairwell is five inches from the first riser, creating a potential unreasonably dangerous condition at the exit.
- Evidence included an architecture expert (Cook) who opined the stairwell-door configuration was unreasonably dangerous; architect Hershenson testified the layout complied with code and was approved.
- Niven, plaintiff's witness, did not see the stairwell upon entry, suggesting a factual dispute about the danger’s open/obvious nature.
- The jury found a 50% contributorily negligent plaintiff, awarded net damages of about $1.5 million; defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and plaintiff issued a citation to discover assets.
- The trial court denied the stay of the citation; defense counsel was found in contempt for challenging that decision before ruling on JNOV; the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty existence under Restatement §343 | Van Gelderen argues defendant owed a duty due to a dangerous open condition. | Hokin contends no duty since the stairs were not an unreasonable risk. | Duty exists as a matter of law under §343, supported by expert testimony. |
| Open and obvious danger doctrine waiver and applicability | Open/obvious defense was not properly preserved; no waiver. | Open/obvious is a complete bar to liability. | Open/obvious argument waived; even if preserved, not established as an open/obvious danger as a matter of law. |
| Rule 213 disclosure and admission of Niven's testimony | Niven’s testimony about avoidance of the door was properly admitted. | Failure to disclose under Rule 213(f) precludes testimony. | Admission of Niven's testimony was not abuse of discretion. |
| Admission of Cook’s expert testimony on danger of configuration | Cook’s architectural expertise supports unreasonably dangerous condition. | Cook's qualifications and relevance are insufficient to establish duty. | Cook qualified as an expert; his testimony supported the jury’s finding. |
| Impeachment evidence of wealth and subsequent remedial action | Evidence of wealth and baby gate post-accident was probative of credibility. | Evidence was prejudicial and improper under Fan; should be excluded. | Baby gate impeachment evidence permitted; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. City of Chicago, 188 Ill.2d 235 (Ill. 1999) (duty analysis in negligence; when no duty, no liability)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill.2d 380 (Ill. 1998) (four-factor duty test; Restatement §343 relevance)
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill.2d 435 (Ill. 1996) (open and foreseeability aspects of danger in duty analysis)
- Alcorn v. Stepzinski, 185 Ill.App.3d 1 (Ill. App. 1989) (open/obvious danger and stairway configuration limits of duty)
- Glass v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 238 Ill.App.3d 355 (Ill. App. 1992) (stairs generally create risk; expert testimony impact on duty)
- American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. National Advertising Co., 149 Ill.2d 14 (Ill. 1992) (open/obvious danger issues; evidence of coworker perception as factual question)
- Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc., 405 Ill.App.3d 14 (Ill. App. 2010) (open/obvious determination; jury factual question when not clear as a matter of law)