Lake v. Related Management Company, L.P.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2010 » Lake v. Related Management Company, L.P.

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-09-0867 Rel

Case Date: 08/30/2010

Preview:Filed 8/30/10

NO. 4-09-0867 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

ANGELA LAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., an Illinois Limited Partnership; and DECATUR PROPERTIES OF ILLINOIS, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, Defendants-Appellees.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Appeal from Circuit Court of Macon County No. 06L187 Honorable Albert G. Webber, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Angela Lake, filed a negligence complaint against defendants, Related Management Company, L.P., and Decatur Properties of Illinois, L.P., to recover damages for injuries she suffered when she tripped on the sidewalk in front of her apartment. The apartment complex was owned, managed, and maintained by defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding the defect in the sidewalk was a known, open, and obvious condition, and that plaintiff was distracted by the bags of groceries she was carrying at the time she fell--a distraction that was self-imposed and which precluded defendants' liability as a matter of law. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In plaintiff's November 2006 complaint, she alleged that on December 4, 2004, she was carrying two bags of groceries, one in each arm, from her car into her apartment at Southern Hills apartment complex in Decatur when the heel of her boot got caught in a one-inch gap between the concrete slabs of the sidewalk and the front entry of

her apartment. She fell and sustained injuries. In her deposition, plaintiff stated that she knew the gap existed and described it as "dangerous," yet "obvious" and in plain view. She had lived in the same apartment since March 2001 and had knowingly traveled over the gap approximately eight times per week as part of her normal outings to and from her apartment. She first complained to management and/or maintenance personnel about the gap in 2002. In June and July 2009, defendants, respectively, each filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2008)), claiming it did not owe plaintiff a duty to warn or protect her from an open and obvious condition. In response, plaintiff did not dispute that she knew about the gap or that it was an open and obvious condition. Rather, she claimed defendants cannot be relieved of liability when she was injured by the dangerous condition while distracted by the act of carrying groceries. In October 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendants' motions for summary judgment, considering arguments of each party. The court took the matter under advisement. Two weeks later, the court entered the following docket entry: "The question here is then was the [p]laintiff's allege[d] selfdistraction reasonably foreseeable by the [d]efendants? It does not take much imagination to conclude almost any activity engaged in by a tenant could be self-distracting. For younger tenants, cell phones and iPods could serve; for older tenants misplaced keys or glasses; for those in the middle maybe simple wool-gathering while contemplating the next appellate court -2-

argument. bottomless.

The human capacity for self-absorption is To accept the [p]laintiff's suggestion here of

foreseeability would be tantamount to making the premises owner an insurer of tenant's safety throughout their property against the possibility of any one of an infinite number of activities making up a person[']s normal daily activities result in self-distraction. The cases do not support such a conclusion. The [d]efendants' [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment is allowed." The court entered a written order on November 6, 2009. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS A motion for summary judgment should be granted when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, reveal there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 207 Ill. 2d 33, 38-39, 796 N.E.2d 1040, 1043 (2003). "The purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of fact, but is instead to determine whether one exists." Rexroad, 207 Ill. 2d at 39, 796 N.E.2d at 1043. We review de novo the court's order granting summary judgment. Weather-Tite, Inc. v. University of St. Francis, 233 Ill. 2d 385, 389, 909 N.E.2d 830, 833 (2009). In an action for negligence, the plaintiff must set out sufficient facts establishing the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach. Bonner v. City of Chicago, 334 Ill. App. 3d 481, 483, 778 N.E.2d 285, 288 (2002). Unless the plaintiff can demonstrate the -3-

existence of a duty on the defendant's part, no recovery by the plaintiff is possible as a matter of law and summary judgment in favor of the defendant is proper. Vesey v. Chicago Housing Authority, 145 Ill. 2d 404, 411, 583 N.E.2d 538, 541 (1991). One factor to be considered in determining whether a duty exists is the reasonable foreseeability of injury. See LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380, 389, 706 N.E.2d 441, 446 (1998). The foreseeability element is discussed in section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states: "A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger." Restatement (Second) of Torts

Download Lake v. Related Management Company, L.P..pdf