- Appellate Practice
- Business Practices
- Catastrophic Loss Recovery and Defense
- Commercial and Complex Litigation
- Commercial Real Estate and Land Development
- Construction Law
- Employment Practices And Workers’ Compensation Defense/Recovery
- Insurance Coverage
- Insurance Defense Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- Municipal and Public Official Liability
- Nonprofit Organizations
- Nursing Home and Senior Housing
- Products Liability Defense
- Jury Returns Verdict in favor of Hospital and Emergency Medicine Physicians
- Judge Grants Summary Judgment in favor of Hospital and Emergency Medicine Physician
- Jury Returns Verdict in favor of Health System and Family Practice Physician
- Victory on Claims of Excessive Force Against Task Force Members
- Radiologist not guilty of failing to diagnose lung cancer in a 40-year-old male which resulted in his death and, who was survived by a wife and 4 children
Although we strive for accuracy, the content of our blog is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. Laws differ by jurisdiction, and the information may not apply to every reader. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained on this blog without first seeking professional counsel.
Your use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGLJ.
Tag Archives: Bruns v. City of Centralia
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Plaintiff is not so Easily Distracted in New Open and Obvious Case
A common fact scenario in a premises liability case is the plaintiff who is injured tripping over a large box, pallet, basket, display, etc. while shopping at the defendant’s retail store. When a defense attorney gets a case like this, the first thing that should come to mind is: this is “open and obvious.” The client will almost always inquire about our chances of prevailing on a motion for summary judgment. Until recently, our response has typically been that there is a strong argument that the condition was open and obvious, but all the plaintiff had to say to defeat such a motion was that he was “distracted.” The distraction could be just about anything related to the business—from all the pretty merchandise he was looking to buy from the defendant’s store, to a crying baby in the cart next to him, to the employees stocking shelves next to him—and chances are good that the court would hold the distraction exception to apply and the case would proceed to a jury. It has been a difficult exception for a defendant business to overcome ever since Ward v. K-Mart, where the Court held that a plaintiff who walked into a large concrete post was distracted by the large item he was carrying.
But now, promisingly, the Illinois Supreme Court has recently released an opinion regarding the open and obvious doctrine and the limits of the distraction exception. On September 18, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bruns v. The City of Centralia, reversing the appellate court and upholding the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
In Bruns, the plaintiff tripped on a crack in the sidewalk while on her way to a scheduled eye appointment. The parties agreed that the sidewalk defect was open and obvious, but disagreed as to the applicability of the distraction exception. The “distraction exception” applies where the possessor of land has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention may be distracted so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it. In this case, the only distraction identified by plaintiff was that her attention was fixed on the door and steps of the clinic. The Supreme Court concluded that the mere fact of looking elsewhere does not constitute a distraction:
We note that the concept of foreseeability is not boundless. That something “might conceivably occur,” does not make it foreseeable. . . .Rather, something is foreseeable only if it is “objectively reasonable to expect.” In the absence of evidence of an actual distraction, we disagree with plaintiff that it was objectively reasonable for the City to expect that a pedestrian, generally exercising reasonable care for her own safety, would look elsewhere and fail to avoid the risk of injury from an open and obvious sidewalk defect. The plaintiff’s position is contrary to the very essence of the open and obvious rule: because the risks are obvious, the defendant “’could not reasonably be expected to anticipate that people will fail to protect themselves from any danger posed by the condition.’” . . . Were we to conclude, as plaintiff does, that simply looking elsewhere constitutes a legal distraction, then the open and obvious rule would be upended and the distraction exception would swallow the rule.
This is a favorable ruling from a defense perspective, as the court finally appears to be limiting the “distraction exception” so it can no longer be used to automatically overcome the open and obvious defense. We hope to test the applicability and bounds of the Bruns case as a defense with our future and current cases involving the open and obvious doctrine.