Williams v. SEBERT LANDSCAPE CO.
946 N.E.2d 971
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Deloyse Williams slipped on an ice patch in the parking lot of her workplace in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, on January 7, 2005.
- Snow had fallen on January 5, 2005, and Sebert Landscape had cleared snow under contract with the property owner, Centerpoint, but did not have a duty to remove ice.
- Sebert, as a snow-removal contractor, arrived after storms and removed snow; the contract did not require ice removal.
- Williams sued both Centerpoint and Sebert; Centerpoint settled, and Williams proceeded against Sebert at trial.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury using IPI Civil 125.02 (owner-occupier standard) over Williams' objection; the jury found for Sebert.
- On appeal, Williams contends the court erred in using 125.02; the appellate court agreed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 125.02 instructions were proper | Williams | Sebert | Using 125.02 was improper; remand for new trial |
| Standard of care owed by a snow-removal contractor | Williams | Sebert | Contractor owes ordinary negligence, not owner-occupier standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Esser v. McIntyre, 169 Ill.2d 292 (1996) (defining owner-occupier standard and control)
- Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 171 Ill.App.3d 1012 (1988) (contractor duty; removal of snow may leave ice; ordinary negligence standard)
- Flight v. American Community Management, Inc., 384 Ill.App.3d 540 (2008) (contractor's duty bound by contract; not negligent merely by snow removal)
- Madeo v. Tri-Land Properties, Inc., 239 Ill.App.3d 288 (1992) (contractor owes duty of reasonable care to person on property)
- Madden v. F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen, Inc., 395 Ill.App.3d 362 (2009) (control and ownership concepts for owner-occupier status)
- Simich v. Edgewater Beach Apartments Corp., 368 Ill.App.3d 394 (2006) (standard of care de novo determination)
- Bulger v. Chicago Transit Authority, 345 Ill.App.3d 103 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instructions; prejudice considerations)
- Clarke v. Medley Moving & Storage, Inc., 381 Ill.App.3d 82 (2008) (settled framework for reviewing jury instructions)