Case Title: Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc.

Citation: 2016 IL 120394

Docket Number: 120394

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 IL 120394 
 
IN THE 
SUPREME COURT 
OF 
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
(Docket No. 120394) 
PAMELA MURPHY-HYLTON, Appellee, v. LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT  
SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellants. 
 
 
Opinion filed December 1, 2016. 
 
 
JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 
 
Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, and 
Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
 
OPINION 
 
¶ 1 
 
The question presented in this appeal involves the scope of the immunity 
provided under the Snow and Ice Removal Act (Act) (745 ILCS 75/0.01 et seq. 
(West 2010)). Plaintiff, Pamela Murphy-Hylton, slipped while walking on the 
sidewalk outside her condominium, sustaining personal injuries. She brought a 
negligence action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendants, 
Lieberman Management Services, Inc. (Lieberman), and Klein Creek 
 
 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
Condominium (Klein Creek), alleging that a defective condition and negligent 
maintenance of the premises created an unnatural accumulation of ice, which 
caused her fall. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 
finding that the Act provided immunity to defendants. The appellate court reversed 
and remanded, ruling that the immunity under the Act did not bar plaintiff’s cause 
of action. 2015 IL App (1st) 142804, ¶¶ 41, 47. For the reasons that follow, we 
affirm the appellate court. 
 
¶ 2 
 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
¶ 3 
 
Plaintiff was an owner and resident of a condominium unit at the Klein Creek 
Condominium complex in the Village of Carol Stream, Illinois. The common 
elements of the property were owned and controlled by defendant, Klein Creek. 
The Klein Creek Condominium Association retained defendant, Lieberman 
Management Services, Inc., to manage the property.  
¶ 4 
 
In early February 2011, a large snowstorm hit Carol Stream, producing 
snowfall in excess of 20 inches. On February 7, 2011, the snow removal and 
landscaping service hired by the association cleared snow and ice from the 
sidewalks of the complex. Eleven days later, on the morning of February 18, 2011, 
plaintiff left her condominium unit and was walking on the sidewalk behind the 
building on her way to the adjacent parking lot. As she was walking, she slipped 
and fell, suffering a fracture to her leg, knee, and hip. She filed suit, claiming that 
she fell on an unnatural accumulation of ice on the sidewalk. In her fourth amended 
complaint, she alleged, inter alia, that defendants were negligent in failing to 
properly direct the drainage of water and melted snow on the premises, failing to 
repair defective sidewalks, and failing to repair downspouts to prevent an unnatural 
accumulation of ice on the sidewalk. She additionally alleged that defendants failed 
to comply with various local building construction and maintenance codes.  
¶ 5 
 
During discovery, plaintiff testified that the weather on the morning she fell 
was cold and sunny with no precipitation. She estimated the temperature was in the 
twenties. There had been no precipitation since the last snowfall in early February. 
When she first stepped outside, the sidewalks appeared clear, and she did not see 
any ice prior to her fall. She noticed the patch of ice after she fell, which she 
described as about the size of a letter-sized piece of paper. She believed that the ice 
 
 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
that caused her fall resulted from water that had accumulated on either side of the 
sidewalk. She observed that water would run off from the downspouts affixed to 
either side of the building onto the grass. From there, the water would collect on the 
sidewalk, where it would freeze instead of draining onto the parking lot. She never 
reported the drainage issue to defendants. 
¶ 6 
 
Other witnesses were deposed regarding their observations of the condition of 
the premises where plaintiff fell. Plaintiff’s neighbor, Roger McGowan, stated that 
he slipped and fell on ice in the same area of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell that 
same morning at about 6 a.m. but did not report it to defendants. He observed that 
the issue of water collecting on the sidewalk had been present since he moved to the 
complex in 2008. From his observations, the sidewalks appeared to be lower than 
where the foundation of the building sits and lower than where the downspouts are 
positioned. After a heavy rain, the water would run away from the building and 
toward the sidewalk, where the water would collect. Snow from areas close to the 
building would melt and then run toward the sidewalk. When the weather got cold 
again, water would freeze up across the sidewalk. McGowan was also told by 
another resident that they could not put mulch down because the mulch would all 
wash away from the water draining down from the gutters and the downspouts. 
McGowan never complained about the drainage issues to anyone at Klein Creek or 
to Lieberman. 
¶ 7 
 
Michael Melson, plaintiff’s brother, observed standing water on the sidewalk in 
the area where plaintiff fell either that night or the next day. He also slipped and 
almost fell on the same sidewalk a day or two after plaintiff’s fall. According to 
Melson, water would pool on the sidewalk after a rainfall or melting snow. Based 
on his observations, the sidewalk was lower than the grass and was graded toward 
the grass instead of the parking lot, allowing water and dirt to run down onto it and 
allowing patches of ice to form.  
¶ 8 
 
Jeff Graves, the president of the Klein Creek Condominium Association at the 
time of plaintiff’s fall, stated that prior to her fall he was aware of water collecting 
on and around the sidewalks in other areas of the complex, especially during heavy 
rainstorms, but he was not aware of similar water pooling in the area behind the 
building where plaintiff fell. The only accumulation of water he ever saw in that 
location would be from puddles after it rained. Graves inspected the area where 
 
 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
plaintiff fell several hours after the fall, and the sidewalk was “bone dry.” He did 
not see any ice. At that time, the temperature was in the forties or fifties, and it was 
sunny. 
¶ 9 
 
April Knourek, the property manager prior to plaintiff’s fall, and Kyla Mercer, 
the manager at the time of plaintiff’s fall, both testified regarding maintenance of 
the premises and drainage work that had been performed at the property. Knourek 
stated that drainage work was prompted by residents in another area of the 
complex, who were having problems with water pooling up near the foundation of 
their building and with mulch and dirt being washed away by the water. Neither 
manager recalled any problems with sidewalks, and both believed that most of the 
drainage issues had occurred on the courtyard side of the buildings and not in the 
back of the buildings where the sidewalks are located. Mercer did not inspect the 
sidewalk where plaintiff fell after the incident.  
¶ 10 
 
When shown photographs of the sidewalk area where plaintiff fell, which were 
taken a month after the fall, both managers acknowledged that some of the 
photographs depicted standing water on the sidewalk and mud and debris on the 
sidewalk from the grassy area. Knourek agreed that the problem with mud and 
debris was consistent with the type of drainage issues residents had complained 
about previously in other areas of the property. She agreed that standing water on 
the sidewalk could freeze and cause an icy condition, but she did not believe it 
would require intervention. Mercer acknowledged that one of the photographs 
depicted the grassy area adjacent to the sidewalk at a higher level than the sidewalk 
and the carpenter’s level in the photograph showed the sidewalk slightly slanted 
toward the grassy area. They both stated that during their time as property manager, 
they were not aware of any issues with standing water on the sidewalk where 
plaintiff fell.  
¶ 11 
 
David Selio was the owner of the snow and ice removal and landscaping service 
hired by the association and was also a resident of Klein Creek. He testified that 
under the contract, he would perform snow and ice removal services when two or 
more inches of snow fell but for any snowfall less than two inches, he was required 
to get approval from the association. He last cleared the snow on February 7, 2011, 
about 11 days prior to plaintiff’s fall. He was aware that prior to plaintiff’s fall, 
drain tile was installed in another area of the complex to redirect the flow of water 
 
 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
on the property away from the foundation, due to soil erosion. In 2010, the 
Association accepted his bid for installation of drain tile work in another area of the 
complex to improve drainage near the foundation. Eight months after plaintiff’s 
fall, in October 2011, additional drainage redirection work was done on the 
premises, including work to the area behind the building where plaintiff fell.  
¶ 12 
 
Defendants subsequently filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing, 
in part, that plaintiff’s slip and fall claim was barred by the immunity provided to 
residential owners and operators under the Snow and Ice Removal Act. 745 ILCS 
75/0.01 et seq. (West 2010). In ruling on the issue, the trial court recognized a split 
of authority in the appellate court regarding the scope of the immunity under the 
Act. In Greene v. Wood River Trust, 2013 IL App (4th) 130036, ¶ 17, the court held 
that the plain language of the Act limits immunity from liability to those claims 
arising out of negligent snow and ice removal efforts. Alternatively, in Ryan v. 
Glen Ellyn Raintree Condominium Ass’n, 2014 IL App (2d) 130682, ¶ 20, the court 
construed the scope of the immunity more broadly to include immunity from 
liability for claims of negligence arising from a defective condition on the property 
or negligent maintenance of the premises. The trial court, relying on the 
interpretation in Ryan, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  
¶ 13 
 
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the 
basis that the immunity provided under the Act did not bar plaintiff’s claims. 2015 
IL App (1st) 142804. The court reasoned that the immunity conferred by the Act 
did not apply to plaintiff’s claims “for the simple reason that plaintiff’s complaint 
does not contain any allegations of negligence relating to snow or ice removal 
efforts.” Id. ¶ 39. The court emphasized that the Act provides “a clear, concise 
statement of the conduct, i.e., the removal of ice and snow, that the Act intends to 
promote.” Id. ¶ 41. The court found that, consistent with the court’s interpretation 
in Greene, the Act, when read as a whole, “requires that the snow or ice that causes 
a plaintiff’s injuries must be the result of the acts or omissions in defendants’ actual 
snow removal efforts,” rather than the result of a premises defect. Id. The court held 
that the Act’s plain and unambiguous language “makes no mention of protecting 
any type of negligence outside of the ordinary negligence that results in an 
unnatural accumulation after snow removal efforts.” Id. ¶ 42. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
¶ 14 
 
We allowed defendants’ petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 
1, 2015). Additionally, we allowed the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association to file an 
amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff and the Illinois Association of Defense 
Trial Counsel to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendants. Ill. S. Ct. R. 
345(a) (eff. Sept. 20, 2010). 
 
¶ 15 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS 
¶ 16 
 
The principles governing our standard of review are well settled. A motion for 
summary judgment will be granted only where “the pleadings, depositions, and 
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine 
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 
matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012). We review the trial court’s 
decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo. Coleman v. East Joliet Fire 
Protection District, 2016 IL 117952, ¶ 20. 
¶ 17 
 
In seeking and obtaining summary judgment, defendants argued, and the trial 
court held, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because they were 
immune from liability under the Act. Thus, we are ultimately presented with an 
issue of statutory construction, which is also a question of law subject to de novo 
review. Valfer v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, 2016 IL 119220, ¶ 19. 
¶ 18 
 
To understand the scope of the immunity provided under the Act, it is necessary 
to first understand the context in which the immunity arises, as the Act is only 
implicated where there would otherwise be liability. Where the plaintiff seeks 
recovery based on the defendant’s alleged negligence, the plaintiff must plead and 
prove the existence of a duty owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty, and 
injury proximately resulting from that breach. Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 
116998, ¶ 12.  
¶ 19 
 
In the context of liability of a landowner for a fall on snow and ice, the general 
rule in Illinois historically has been that under the common law, a landowner owes 
no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. Krywin v. Chicago 
Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215, 227 (2010); Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill. 2d 133, 
137 (1953); Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638, 641 (1931). The rule 
recognizes that to hold otherwise would create an unreasonable burden of vigilance 
 
 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
when considering that snowstorms cannot be foreseen or controlled and recognizes 
“ ‘the climatic vagaries of this area with its unpredictable snowfalls and frequent 
temperature changes.’ ” Tzakis v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 
740, 748 (2005) (quoting Lapidus v. Hahn, 115 Ill. App. 3d 795, 801 (1983)). 
¶ 20 
 
However, landowners do owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent unnatural 
accumulations of ice and snow on their premises where they have actual or 
constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Graham, 346 Ill. at 643. Thus, 
liability may arise where snow or ice “accumulated by artificial causes or in an 
unnatural way or by a defendant’s own use of the area concerned and creation of the 
condition, and where it has been there long enough to charge the responsible party 
with notice and knowledge of the dangerous condition.” Fitzsimons v. National Tea 
Co., 29 Ill. App. 2d 306, 318 (1961).  
¶ 21 
 
Various theories of liability for falls on an unnatural accumulation of ice have 
been recognized, including (1) a defective condition or negligent maintenance of 
the premises and (2) a voluntary undertaking theory. Webb v. Morgan, 176 Ill. App. 
3d 378, 382-83 (1988). Under the negligent maintenance cases, courts recognize 
that the construction and maintenance of landowners’ premises are matters within 
their control. Therefore, to hold them to a duty of reasonable care under these 
circumstances does not impose an undue burden on them not to “add to the 
difficulties facing Illinois residents from natural accumulations of ice and snow by 
permitting unnatural accumulations due to defective construction or improper or 
insufficient maintenance of the premises.” Bloom v. Bistro Restaurant Ltd. 
Partnership, 304 Ill. App. 3d 707, 711 (1999). See, e.g., McLean v. Rockford 
Country Club, 352 Ill. App. 3d 229, 238 (2004) (alleging that specific building 
defects, including improperly hung and sized gutters and improperly pitched 
overhang roof, caused an unnatural accumulation of ice); Lapidus, 115 Ill. App. 3d 
at 800-01 (alleging that water dripped from leaky roof and collected in a depression 
on the porch and froze, causing an unnatural accumulation); McCann v. Bethesda 
Hospital, 80 Ill. App. 3d 544, 550-51 (1979) (excessive slope of the parking lot 
presented a question of fact whether the ice causing the fall was an unnatural 
accumulation). 
¶ 22 
 
Alternatively, under the voluntary undertaking theory, liability has been 
recognized where the landowner voluntarily undertakes the task of removing a 
 
 
 
 
 
- 8 - 
natural accumulation of snow and ice and does so negligently, creating an unnatural 
accumulation on his property. Tzakis, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 746. See, e.g., Sims v. 
Block, 94 Ill. App. 2d 215 (1968) (landowner created an unnatural condition when 
he plowed snow up against the plaintiff’s parked car, creating a 5- to 6-inch ridge of 
ice along the car where plaintiff fell); Fitzsimons, 29 Ill. App. 2d at 314 (snow 
negligently piled in an area of a parking lot where alternate thawing and freezing 
caused it to drain across the lot and freeze, forming an unnatural accumulation of 
ice).  
¶ 23 
 
The problem with liability arising from a voluntary undertaking theory was that 
it potentially encouraged inaction. Property owners risked liability if their 
voluntary actions in clearing the snow and ice after a snowstorm were construed as 
negligently creating an unnatural accumulation. See Michael J. Polelle, Is the 
Natural Accumulation Rule All Wet?, 26 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 631, 649 (1995) (“If 
taken seriously, the rule favors inaction over action.”). 
¶ 24 
 
Since 1979, the General Assembly has provided immunity under the Snow and 
Ice Removal Act to residential property owners for liability in connection with their 
snow or ice removal efforts in order to encourage them to “clean the sidewalks 
abutting their residences of snow and ice.” 745 ILCS 75/1, 2 (West 2010). The 
question before us is whether, in addition to immunizing claims of liability under a 
voluntary undertaking theory, the immunity extends to claims of liability for 
negligence arising from a defective condition or a failure to maintain the premises 
that causes an unnatural accumulation of ice on the sidewalk. 
¶ 25 
 
When presented with an issue of statutory construction, this court’s primary 
objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Valfer v. 
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, 2016 IL 119220, ¶ 22. The best indicator of 
legislative intent is the language employed in the statute, which must be given its 
plain and ordinary meaning. Id. We must view the statute as a whole, construing 
words and phrases in context to other relevant statutory provisions and not in 
isolation. Bowman v. Ottney, 2015 IL 119000, ¶ 9. Each word, clause, and sentence 
of a statute must be given a reasonable meaning, if possible, and should not be 
rendered superfluous. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Board of Education 
of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112566, ¶ 15. Additionally, the court may consider 
 
 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
the reason for the law, the problems sought to be remedied, the purposes to be 
achieved, and the consequences of construing the statute one way or another. Id. 
¶ 26 
 
Specifically, section 2 of the Act provides for immunity as follows: 
“Any owner, lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any residential 
property, or any agent of or other person engaged by any such party, who 
removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the 
property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the 
snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or 
omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton.” 745 ILCS 
75/2 (West 2010).  
¶ 27 
 
The General Assembly has expressly articulated the public policy of the State 
and purpose for the immunity under the Act in section 1 as follows: 
“It is declared to be the public policy of this State that owners and others 
residing in residential units be encouraged to clean the sidewalks abutting their 
residences of snow and ice. The General Assembly, therefore, determines that it 
is undesirable for any person to be found liable for damages due to his or her 
efforts in the removal of snow or ice from such sidewalks, except for acts which 
amount to clear wrongdoing, as described in Section 2 of this Act.” 745 ILCS 
75/1 (West 2010). 
Thus, section 1 of the Act reflects a legislative determination that it is beneficial to 
encourage residential property owners1 to clear their sidewalks of snow and ice, 
conduct which they otherwise would have no common-law duty to perform. 
Therefore, the General Assembly deemed it “undesirable” for any person to be 
found liable “due to” his or her snow or ice removal efforts. 745 ILCS 75/1 (West 
2010).  
¶ 28 
 
To accomplish this objective, the General Assembly has provided that any 
residential property owner “who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice” is not 
                                                 
 
1For ease of reference, when we refer to residential property owners, we also intend to 
include “lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any residential property, or any agent 
of or other person engaged by any such party,” as provided for by the Act. 745 ILCS 75/2 
(West 2010). 
 
 
 
 
 
- 10 - 
liable for injuries “allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk 
resulting from his or her acts or omissions,” unless the conduct was willful or 
wanton. 745 ILCS 75/2 (West 2010). Reading section 2 as a whole, the section 
limits its scope to a residential property owner “who removes or attempts to remove 
snow or ice” on the sidewalk and who, as a result of their negligent “acts or 
omissions,” allegedly causes a “snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk.” 745 ILCS 
75/2 (West 2010). Accordingly, section 2 of the Act immunizes residential property 
owners from liability for negligent snow and ice removal efforts. See, e.g., Divis v. 
Woods Edge Homeowners’ Ass’n, 385 Ill. App. 3d 636, 638 (2008) (where plaintiff 
alleged that “incomplete and improper” snow removal efforts resulted in ice 
accumulation, causing his fall, the Act immunized defendants from liability). 
¶ 29 
 
In keeping with our rules of statutory construction, we cannot construe a statute 
that is in derogation of the common law “beyond what the words of the statute 
expresses or beyond what is necessarily implied from what is expressed.” Adams v. 
Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32, 69 (2004). Since the immunity provided 
under the Act was enacted in derogation of the common law, it must be construed 
strictly. Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 368 (2003); Adams, 211 
Ill. 2d at 69-70 (“Illinois courts have limited all manner of statutes in derogation of 
the common law to their express language, in order to effect the least—rather than 
the most—change in the common law”). Nothing in the plain language of section 2 
of the Act evidences an intent by the General Assembly to otherwise immunize 
liability for falls on accumulations of ice that result due to circumstances unrelated 
to negligent snow and ice removal efforts.  
¶ 30 
 
To hold otherwise would represent an unwarranted expansion of the 
legislatively established parameters of the Act and would be inconsistent with the 
Act’s policy objective. Defendants’ suggested construction would reward a 
landowner’s passivity in failing to exercise due care in maintaining his property in a 
reasonably safe condition and would turn the purpose for the immunity on its head. 
As explained, the purpose of the immunity is to reward those residential property 
owners who voluntarily undertake a duty where there otherwise would be none. 
The purpose was not to encourage the failure to otherwise maintain the premises in 
a reasonably safe condition. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 11 - 
¶ 31 
 
The appellate court in this case and in other recent appellate court decisions has 
interpreted the Act consistently with our construction here. See Greene, 2013 IL 
App (4th) 130036; Reed v. Country Place Apartments-Moweaqua I, L.P., 2016 IL 
App (5th) 150170. Nevertheless, defendants maintain that we should follow the 
Second District’s interpretation of the Act in Ryan v. Glen Ellyn Raintree 
Condominium Ass’n, 2014 IL App (2d) 130682. In Ryan, the appellate court 
rejected the contention that the immunity under the Act extends only to liability for 
ice accumulations that were negligently created by the owner’s snow and ice 
removal efforts because it found that “section 2 neither expresses nor necessarily 
implies an intent to exclude” immunity based on the source of the accumulation. Id. 
¶ 16. The court held that the plaintiff’s construction would improperly read 
exceptions into the provision and would therefore violate the canon that prohibits 
reading exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. 
Id.  
¶ 32 
 
The Ryan court’s interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the Act and 
would improperly expand the immunity beyond its expressly stated language. As 
we explained, the Act expressly immunizes liability for negligent snow and ice 
removal efforts. To the extent the Act immunizes negligent “omissions,” the 
language specifically limits those “omissions” to those that result due to the actual 
undertaking of snow and ice removal efforts, not those “omissions” that result from 
an otherwise negligent failure to maintain the premises. 745 ILCS 75/2 (West 
2010).  
¶ 33 
 
Furthermore, the Ryan court’s overly broad construction would violate our 
obligation to narrowly construe immunity statutes that are established in derogation 
of the common law (Van Meter, 207 Ill. 2d at 368) and would violate our duty to 
“effect the least—rather than the most—change in the common law” (Adams, 211 
Ill. 2d at 69-70). Nothing in the express language of the Act indicates an intent to 
completely eviscerate the residential property owner’s duty of reasonable care to 
prevent unnatural accumulations of ice and snow.  
¶ 34 
 
Finally, the Ryan court’s interpretation would contravene the stated public 
policy underlying the Act, which was not to protect homeowners who negligently 
maintain or construct their premises but, rather, to encourage homeowners to 
engage in safety measures they have no duty to perform.  
 
 
 
 
 
- 12 - 
¶ 35 
 
Applying the proper construction here, the immunity provided under the Act 
does not insulate defendants from the theory of liability in the instant case. 
Plaintiff’s theory of the case is not that defendants negligently undertook efforts to 
remove a natural accumulation of snow or ice from the sidewalk and thereby 
caused an unnatural accumulation of ice on the sidewalk. Indeed, the last snow and 
ice removal efforts were undertaken 11 days prior to plaintiff’s fall. Rather, 
plaintiff’s theory is that the ice formed on the sidewalk in an unnatural way due to 
an otherwise defective condition of the property and that defendants were negligent 
in failing to make reasonable efforts to maintain the property to eliminate the 
danger created after reasonable notice of the condition. 
¶ 36 
 
Whether plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to present that theory of 
negligence to the trier of fact and whether she can prove that theory at trial are yet 
to be determined in this case. The trial court limited its ruling solely to the 
immunity question. We merely hold that the Act is not an affirmative defense to 
plaintiff’s theory of negligence.  
¶ 37 
 
Lastly, defendants argue, relying on Pikovsky v. 8440-8460 North Skokie 
Boulevard Condominium Ass’n, 2011 IL App (1st) 103742, ¶ 13, that a contract for 
snow removal services is prima facie evidence of snow and ice removal efforts. 
From that premise, they maintain that their conduct in contracting for snow and ice 
removal services brings them within the scope of the Act.  
¶ 38 
 
We do not read Pikovsky as suggesting that a mere contract for snow removal 
services would provide immunity from liability for injuries allegedly caused by the 
snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk. Rather, in Pikovsky, the plaintiff asserted 
that she slipped and fell on the rear entrance sidewalk of her condominium due to 
“icy snow mounds.” Id. ¶ 4. The plaintiff claimed that the snow mounds were 
formed by snow that was plowed from the parking lot onto the rear entrance 
sidewalk, creating “an unsafe and dangerous condition of unnatural accumulation.” 
Id. ¶ 5.  
¶ 39 
 
The court found that the defendants had a contract for snow removal services 
and that the snow removal companies performed their duties under the contract to 
clear snow and ice from the premises. The fact that they failed to remove the snow 
and ice mounds from the rear entrance sidewalk was an “omission in their overall 
snow removal efforts,” which was subject to immunity under the Act. Id. ¶ 13. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 13 - 
Consequently, Pikovsky does not stand for defendants’ stated proposition. 
Moreover, the case is distinguishable where, unlike the present case, the plaintiff 
alleged that negligent snow removal efforts caused the unnatural accumulation on 
the sidewalk. Here, plaintiff alleged that defendants negligently maintained the 
premises due to a defective condition on the property. 
 
¶ 40 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
¶ 41 
 
The Snow and Ice Removal Act provides immunity to residential property 
owners from claims of liability for injuries allegedly caused by icy sidewalks that 
result from negligent snow and ice removal efforts, but it does not extend to 
immunize them from claims of liability for injuries allegedly caused by icy 
sidewalks that result from an otherwise negligent failure to maintain the premises. 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court, which reversed the trial 
court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants and remanded for further 
proceedings. 
 
¶ 42 
 
Affirmed.