Winters v. MIMG LII Arbors at Eastland, LLC
115 N.E.3d 282
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Freddie Winters, an Arbors apartment tenant, slipped and broke his ankle after walking through a large pile of snow placed on a sidewalk in January 2014.
- Changing Seasons, contracted to clear the parking lots, admitted an employee pushed snow onto the sidewalk; Arbors’ maintenance crew handled sidewalks and later hired Changing Seasons to remove the pile.
- Plaintiff acknowledged he saw the snow pile, knew it was snow/ice, and that alternative routes to the laundry were available and known to him.
- Plaintiff sued Arbors (owner/manager) and Changing Seasons (snow-removal contractor) alleging negligent creation/maintenance of an unnatural snow accumulation that blocked the sidewalk.
- Both defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the condition was open and obvious; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no duty owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the snow pile was an open and obvious condition | Winters: factual dispute exists about whether the snow was open and obvious | Defendants: pile was visible and therefore open and obvious | Court: pile was open and obvious as a matter of law |
| Whether the deliberate-encounter exception applies | Winters: exception applies because he was compelled or had to encounter the hazard | Defendants: multiple safe alternative routes existed; no compulsion | Court: exception does not apply; no economic compulsion and alternatives were reasonable |
| Whether a duty nonetheless exists under traditional duty factors | Winters: even if open and obvious, duty may be imposed under four-factor analysis | Defendants: factors weigh against imposing duty because risk was obvious and avoidable | Court: traditional duty factors weigh against imposing a duty; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Winters: genuine issues of material fact remain | Defendants: no material factual dispute on duty/exception; entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Court: summary judgment appropriate and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2002) (describes deliberate-encounter and distraction exceptions to open-and-obvious rule)
- Morrissey v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC, 404 Ill. App. 3d 711 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (deliberate-encounter exception may apply where shorter/dangerous route is reasonably likely to be used)
- Belluomini v. Stratford Green Condominium Ass’n, 346 Ill. App. 3d 687 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (discusses how exceptions to open-and-obvious reverse duty-factor analysis)
- Sandoval v. City of Chicago, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (reasonable person would recognize and avoid an obvious sidewalk hazard)
- Ralls v. Village of Glendale Heights, 233 Ill. App. 3d 147 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (deliberate-encounter applied where workers were likely to use a shortest but dangerous path)
- Hastings v. Exline, 326 Ill. App. 3d 172 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (deliberate-encounter does not apply when alternative routes offer greater or equal utility and no compulsion exists)