2023 IL App (1st) 221116

No. 1-22-1116 

Opinion filed November 15, 2023 

Third Division

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

SARAH MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 17 L 9485 

Honorable 

Joan E. Powell, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

 Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice R. Van Tine concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 Plaintiff Sarah Martin brought this negligence action against defendant City of Chicago 

(City) to recover for injuries she sustained when she stepped in a hole in the sidewalk and fell to 

the ground. The trial court refused plaintiff’s proffered ordinary negligence liability issue 

instruction and instead tendered to the jury the City’s premises liability issue/burden of proof 

instruction. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the City.

¶ 2 On appeal, plaintiff argues the jury should have received her ordinary negligence liability 

issue instruction because the evidence showed that either the City’s activity on the premises caused 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 2 - 

the injury or the dangerous condition arose as part of the City’s business. She also argues that she 

suffered prejudice from the erroneous jury instruction. 

¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.1

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Plaintiff’s November 2018 first amended complaint was the operative complaint through 

the start of trial. This amended complaint, which entitled plaintiff’s negligence claim as one for 

“premises liability,” alleged that the city owned the sidewalk and was responsible for its 

maintenance; an open hole existed on that sidewalk, which posed a hazard to pedestrians; the City

knew about the hole; the City was negligent in allowing the hole to remain on the sidewalk without 

repair; plaintiff was exercising due care for her own safety; and plaintiff was injured by stepping 

into the hole. 

¶ 6 The City’s answer raised as affirmative defenses the doctrine of comparative negligence

and statutory immunity from liability, based on, inter alia, not having actual or constructive notice 

of the alleged condition that was open and obvious. 

¶ 7 The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed no duty to plaintiff because 

the sidewalk hole was open and obvious as a matter of law. Plaintiff responded that a factual 

dispute existed as to the physical nature of the hole; the distraction exception applied; and the City 

still owed plaintiff a duty regardless. The trial court denied the City’s motion, ruling that there was 

a factual dispute about the visibility of the hole, i.e., whether it was open and obvious. 

1

In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), 

this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.
No. 1-22-1116 

- 3 - 

¶ 8 After the first day of trial, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that changed the title 

of her claim from “premises liability” to “negligence” and removed a dismissed count for willful 

and wanton conduct but made no other changes to the pleading. 

¶ 9 The evidence presented at trial showed that, in April 2017, at about 4 p.m., plaintiff was 

walking with her husband and daughter when plaintiff stepped into a hole in the sidewalk, fell, and 

injured her ankles. The sidewalk’s condition was depicted in the photographs presented at trial. At 

the time of the accident, nothing covered the hole, the area was not slippery or wet, the weather 

was clear, and no other pedestrians were nearby. 

¶ 10 Prior to plaintiff’s fall, her husband was pushing their daughter in a stroller. He testified 

that he did not see the hole and did not step in it. Just before plaintiff stepped in the hole, she was 

walking either single file behind her husband or behind him and slightly to his right. She testified 

that she did not see the hole before walking into it because her husband and the stroller blocked 

her view and she was looking to her right, distracted by a tarp flapping against a fence. 

¶ 11 Michael Drake, superintendent of in-house construction for the Chicago Department of 

Transportation, testified that his department was the agency responsible for repairing holes in the 

City’s sidewalks. The City has 8000 miles of city sidewalk to maintain, an average of 4000 to 6000 

active service requests at any given time, and only five repair crews available to conduct such 

work, necessitating prioritization of the most urgent requests. Drake testified about the City’s 311 

records, including service requests and summary reports related specifically to the hole that 

plaintiff walked into. Specifically, the City had been alerted to the defective condition of the 

sidewalk by the City’s 311 system and knew of the condition of the sidewalk for about one year 

and eight months before plaintiff’s accident. The City had a plan to repair the sidewalk by replacing 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 4 - 

the sidewalk slab but the City did not perform a temporary or permanent repair. Drake testified 

that the hole in the sidewalk could be dangerous for pedestrians. A temporary repair would have

involved a crew filling the hole with gravel or sandbags up to the level of the sidewalk and would 

have cost the City about $250. Replacing the sidewalk slab would have cost the City about $700 

to $800. 

¶ 12 At the jury instruction conference, plaintiff proffered Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, 

Civil, No. 20.01 (revised August 2023) (hereinafter IPI Civil No. 20.01)—the ordinary negligence 

instruction, which does not address whether a condition is open and obvious. Plaintiff argued that 

her complaint was a negligence case, rather than a premises liability case, because the theory of 

her case was that either the City’s activity on the premises caused the injury or the dangerous 

condition arose as part of the City’s business. 

¶ 13 The City proffered Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 120.08 (approved 

December 8, 2011) (hereinafter IPI Civil No. 120.08)—the premises liability issue/burden of proof 

instruction. The City argued that the case had been alleged as, and litigated under, a premises 

liability theory, plaintiff’s allegations related to the condition of the sidewalk and not to any 

activity or business conducted thereon, and the open and obvious issue had been much of the focus 

of the trial. The Notes on Use for this instruction explains that it is “for premises liability cases, 

including those in which the plaintiff claims that he/she was distracted and failed to observe an 

open and obvious defect on the property.” IPI Civil No. 120.08, Notes on Use. Among other 

requirements, this instruction requires the plaintiff to prove that “the defendant could reasonably 

expect that people on the property would not discover or realize the danger or would fail to protect 

themselves against such danger.” IPI Civil No. 120.08. 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 5 - 

¶ 14 After extensive argument, the trial court ruled that IPI Civil No. 120.08 was the appropriate 

instruction given the nature of plaintiff’s case and so instructed the jury. The court also instructed 

the jury on contributory negligence, which the City had raised as a defense. 

¶ 15 While the jury was deliberating, the jury asked the court to clarify the fourth item of 

plaintiff’s burden of proof referred to in the IPI Civil No. 120.08 instruction, i.e., that “the 

defendant could reasonably expect that people on the sidewalk would not discover or realize the 

danger or would fail to protect themselves against such danger.” The court responded that the jury 

should continue deliberating. 

¶ 16 The jury returned a general verdict for the City. The court entered judgment on the verdict 

and denied plaintiff’s posttrial motion. Plaintiff timely appealed.

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18 Litigants are entitled to have the jury instructed on the issues presented, the applicable legal 

principles, and the facts that must be proved to support a verdict. Bailey v. Mercy Hospital & 

Medical Center, 2021 IL 126748, ¶ 41. The trial court has discretion to determine which 

instructions to give the jury, and that determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that 

discretion. Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 273 

(2002). Also, “[t]he question of what issues have been raised by the evidence is within the 

discretion of the trial court.” Leonardi v. Loyola University, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 100 (1995). Moreover, 

“[w]henever Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (IPI), Civil, contains an instruction applicable in a 

civil case *** the IPI instruction shall be used, unless the court determines that it does not 

accurately state the law.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 239(a) (eff. Apr. 8, 2013). The standard for deciding whether 

a trial court abused its discretion is whether, taken as a whole, the instructions fairly, fully, and 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 6 - 

comprehensively apprised the jury of the relevant legal principles. Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 273-74. 

An instruction does not justify reversal unless it clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice 

to the appellant. Dynek v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL App (1st) 190209, ¶ 25. 

¶ 19 Plaintiff argues that this case should have been submitted to the jury under a theory of 

ordinary negligence, instead of premises liability, because the allegations and evidence showed 

that either the City’s activity on the premises caused the injury or the dangerous condition arose 

as part of the City’s business. Specifically, she contends the evidence showed that the City 

negligently omitted to timely repair its sidewalk for over one year and eight months after the City 

learned of the sidewalk danger via its 311 system, visited the site to survey the problem, developed 

a plan to repair it, and placed orders to repair its sidewalk. Plaintiff argues that the City’s activity 

was an act of omission, i.e., surveying the area, placing orders to repair its sidewalk, and carelessly 

omitting to do so. Plaintiff also argues that a part of the City’s business was to repair its sidewalk.

¶ 20 The City argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving IPI Civil No. 

120.08, which accurately states the law and reflected the allegations and evidence presented at 

trial. The City asserts that courts routinely approve the use of the series 120 jury instructions in 

cases alleging injuries from conditions of property, even when those cases are labeled as merely 

“negligence” cases in their pleadings. The City argues that the open and obvious doctrine, which 

IPI Civil No. 120.08 includes, is squarely applicable because plaintiff’s allegation that she was 

injured by a condition on the City’s property brought this doctrine into play. Moreover, the open 

and obvious doctrine affected whether the City owed plaintiff a duty, which is an element of any 

negligence action (see Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998, ¶¶ 13, 15-16; Ballog v. City of 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 7 - 

Chicago, 2012 IL App (1st) 112429, ¶ 20), and part of the plaintiff’s burden of proof, not the 

defendant’s. We agree with the City.

¶ 21 In Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill. 2d 456, 468 (1976), the supreme court established 

the standard for a landowner’s liability for a dangerous condition on the land. Genaust adopted 

section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which stated: 

“ ‘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.’ ” 

Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965)). 

¶ 22 Ordinary negligence requires proof of (1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, 

and (3) an injury proximately caused by the breach. Guvenoz v. Target Corp., 2015 IL App (1st) 

133940, ¶ 89. However, a claim for premises liability requires proof of the three elements of 

ordinary negligence, plus proof that (1) there was a condition on the property that presented an 

unreasonable risk of harm, (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the 

condition and the risk, and (3) the defendant could reasonably have expected people on the 

property would not realize, would not discover, or would fail to protect themselves from the 

danger. Hope v. Hope, 398 Ill. App. 3d 216, 219 (2010). 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 8 - 

¶ 23 If it is a landowner’s conduct or activity that creates the injury-causing hazard, the claim 

is one of ordinary negligence rather than premises liability. See Smart v. City of Chicago, 2013 IL 

App (1st) 120901, ¶¶ 54-57 (a negligence instruction was proper where it was the defendant city’s 

ongoing conduct of resurfacing the intersection that altered the otherwise safe bicycle path and 

created the hazardous condition that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries); Reed v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 298 Ill. App. 3d 712, 716 (1998) (a plaintiff does not need to prove actual 

or constructive notice where the defendant’s employees placed a board with a rusty nail protruding 

from it in the pathway used by shoppers); Wind v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 272 Ill. App. 3d 149, 

155 (1995) (a plaintiff does not need to prove actual or constructive notice where the defendant’s 

employees placed mats by the store entrance but failed to tape down the curled edges of a mat, 

which caused the plaintiff to trip and become injured); Piper v. Moran’s Enterprises, 121 Ill. App. 

3d 644, 646 (1984) (negligence instruction was proper where the defendant’s employees used a 

pallet to display products but failed to move the products forward on the pallet as instructed, which 

caused the plaintiff to become injured when she stood on the pallet to reach the product). 

¶ 24 However, if it is a dangerous condition on the property that creates the injury-causing 

hazard, the claim is one of premises liability rather than ordinary negligence. See Avila v. Chicago 

Transit Authority, 2021 IL App (1st) 190636, ¶¶ 86-87 (premises liability instruction was proper 

where the plaintiff, who sustained injuries after falling down a staircase at a train station, alleged 

that the defendant chose not to have an anti-skid surface and handrails that extended to the 

landing); Garcia v. Goetz, 2018 IL App (1st) 172204, ¶¶17, 31 (premises liability instruction was 

proper where most of the plaintiff’s allegations supported elements of a premises liability claim 

and most of the evidence showed that it was the condition of the defendant’s basement stairway 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 9 - 

that created the hazardous condition); Nickon v. City of Princeton, 376 Ill. App. 3d 1095, 1104-05 

(2007) (approving IPI Civil No. 120.08 in a negligence action relating to a sidewalk fall); Carey 

v. J.R. Lazzara, Inc., 277 Ill. App. 3d 902, 909 (1996) (jury instruction on notice was appropriate 

because liability was predicated on the dangerous condition existing on the defendant’s premises, 

where the plaintiff fell down a staircase that lacked center handrails in violation of various safety 

codes and alleged that the defendant was negligent for failing to provide a center handrail and 

adequate lighting and for providing a winding stairway with narrow steps, one means of exiting 

the luncheon, and handrails that were not easily grasped).

¶ 25 At the jury instructions conference, plaintiff proffered the following ordinary negligence 

instruction, modeled after IPI Civil No. 20.01, which provided in relevant part: 

“The plaintiff claims that [she] was injured and sustained damage, and that the 

defendant was negligent in one or more of the following respects: 

 (a) allowed the hole in the sidewalk to remain open; 

(b) failed to exercise ordinary care to keep and maintain the sidewalk in 

proper and safe condition; 

(c) failed to properly repair the hole in the sidewalk, thereby creating a 

hazardous condition for the residents and others lawfully on the sidewalk, including 

the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause 

of [her] injuries.” 

¶ 26 The City’s premises liability instruction, which ultimately was given to the jury, was 

modeled after IPI Civil No. 120.08 and read, in relevant part, as follows: 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 10 - 

“[Plaintiff] seeks to recover damages from the defendant [City]. In order to recover 

damages, the plaintiff has the burden of proving: 

 First, the defendant controlled the property. 

Second, there was a condition on the sidewalk which presented an 

unreasonable risk of harm to people on the sidewalk. 

Third, the defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have 

known, of both the condition and the risk. 

Fourth, the defendant could reasonably expect that people on the sidewalk 

would not discover or realize the danger, or would fail to protect themselves against 

such danger. 

 Fifth, the defendant was negligent in one or more of the following ways: 

 (a) allowed the hole in the sidewalk to remain open; 

(b) failed to exercise ordinary care to keep and maintain the sidewalk 

in a proper and safe condition; and 

(c) failed to properly repair the hole in the sidewalk, thereby creating 

a hazardous condition for the residents and others lawfully on the sidewalk, 

including the Plaintiff.

 Sixth, the plaintiff was injured. 

Seventh, the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s 

injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that any of these 

propositions has not been proved, then your verdict shall be for the defendant. On the other 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 11 - 

hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions 

have been proved, then you must consider the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff was 

contributorily negligent.” 

¶ 27 IPI Civil No. 120.08 “is an accurate recitation of Illinois law.” Simich v. Edgewater Beach 

Apartments Corp., 368 Ill. App. 3d 394, 410 (2006). That includes the fourth element listed above, 

which relates to whether the condition of the defendant’s property was open and obvious. See id.

Under the open and obvious doctrine, “a party who owns or controls land is not required to foresee 

and protect against an injury if the potentially dangerous condition is open and obvious.” (Internal 

quotation marks omitted.) Bruns, 2014 IL 116998, ¶ 16. For this reason, the Notes on Use 

specifically direct that IPI Civil No. 120.08 should be used in cases in which the plaintiff “claims 

that he/she was distracted and failed to observe an open and obvious defect on the property.” IPI 

Civil No. 120.08, Notes on Use. 

¶ 28 Generally, parties have a right to have the jury instructed on their respective theories of the 

case if those theories are supported by the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. 

Bailey v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, ¶ 84. We recognize that 

under circumstances where a landowner’s conduct in creating an unsafe condition precedes the 

plaintiff’s injury, a plaintiff may elect to pursue a negligence claim, a premises liability claim, or 

both because plaintiffs, as the masters of their complaint, are entitled to proceed under whichever 

theory they decide, so long as the evidence supports such a theory. Smart, 2013 IL App (1st) 

120901, ¶ 54; Reed, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 718. 

¶ 29 Here, the allegations and evidence do not support plaintiff’s desired theory of ordinary 

negligence because the City did not engage in any conduct that created the hole in the sidewalk.
No. 1-22-1116 

- 12 - 

Plaintiff’s complaint outlined a theory of premises liability, rather than a theory of ordinary 

negligence. Specifically, her complaint alleged that the City failed to repair the hole in the 

sidewalk. 

¶ 30 Furthermore, the evidence in this case required that it be submitted to the jury as a premises 

liability case. Plaintiff’s claim of liability was predicated on the dangerous condition existing on 

the City’s sidewalk, and not on the City’s negligent activities or business. See Carey, 277 Ill. App. 

3d at 909. Plaintiff’s theory was that her injuries were caused by the condition of the sidewalk in 

that it had a hole that was large enough for her to step into with both of her feet. Even assuming 

that the City’s repair of its sidewalks constitutes a business of the City (a proposition with which 

the City disagrees), the evidence establishes that the hole did not arise as part of the City’s business 

because the City never repaired the hole. This is not a situation where defendant undertook the 

action of making a repair but did so negligently and thereby created the hazardous condition. 

¶ 31 Plaintiff cites Wind, 272 Ill. App. 3d 149, and Piper, 121 Ill. App. 3d 644, to support her 

contention that a defendant’s acts of omission may constitute evidence of the defendant’s activity 

under an analysis of ordinary negligence versus premises liability jury instructions. Plaintiff’s 

reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions on appeal, in 

Wind, the defendant’s activity was not the omission of failing to tape down the curled edges of the 

mat but, rather, was the defendant’s action of placing that mat by the front door of the store. 272 

Ill. App. 3d at 155. In Piper, the defendant’s activity was not the omission of failing to move 

products forward on the pallet but, rather, was the defendant’s action of using the pallet to display 

the products. 121 Ill. App. 3d at 646. 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 13 - 

¶ 32 Regarding plaintiff’s objection to the inclusion of additional elements relating to notice 

and an unreasonable risk of harm posed by the condition, the Local Governmental and 

Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act requires those elements to be proven in any 

negligence action against the City. 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2016) (“[A] local public entity 

*** shall not be liable for injury unless it is proven that it has actual or constructive notice of the 

existence of such a condition that is not reasonably safe.”); see Nickon, 376 Ill. App. 3d at 1105 

(“constructive notice to the city was a required element” of the jury instructions). Furthermore, 

plaintiff’s assertion that the open and obvious doctrine applies only as an affirmative defense that 

the plaintiff was contributorily/comparatively negligent contravenes Illinois Supreme Court 

precedent. See Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 2012 IL 112948, ¶ 34 (“[T]he requirement 

of an open and obvious danger is not merely a matter of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, or 

the parties’ comparative fault, but rather a lack of the defendant’s duty owed.”). Therefore, the 

instruction issued in this case properly included those elements.

¶ 33 To support her claim of error, plaintiff cites Glass v. City of Chicago, 323 Ill. App. 3d 158 

(2001), where a witness made multiple requests to the city to repair a hole in its sidewalk, 

beginning one year before the hole caused the plaintiff to trip and fall. Glass held that the trial 

court erred when, inter alia, it refused the plaintiff’s ordinary negligence instruction and, instead, 

instructed the jury that the plaintiff has the burden to prove “[t]hat the defendant should have 

anticipated that [people] on the premises would not discover or realize the danger, or would 

otherwise fail to protect themselves against it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 167. In 

so ruling, Glass stated that the city’s liability was based upon its negligent activity of failing to 

repair a sidewalk. Id. Without citing any relevant authority, Glass apparently concluded that the 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 14 - 

city’s omission constituted negligent activity. We find Glass unpersuasive; it failed to conduct any 

analysis of the distinction between cases involving liability premised on a condition existing on 

the land, as opposed to a landowner’s conduct or activity creating the injury-causing hazard. 

¶ 34 Furthermore, Glass’s holding rested on the notion that the “ ‘open and obvious doctrine’ 

[is] inapplicable to municipalities in sidewalk cases” (id.). However, Bruns involved a fall on a 

municipal sidewalk, and the Illinois Supreme Court applied the doctrine (Bruns, 2014 IL 116998, 

¶ 17 (“sidewalk defects *** may also constitute open and obvious dangers”); see Foy v. Village of 

La Grange, 2020 IL App (1st) 191340, ¶ 22; Sandoval v. City of Chicago, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 

1029 (2005); Prostran v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. App. 3d 81, 85-86 (2004); Bonner v. City of 

Chicago, 334 Ill. App. 3d 481, 484 (2002)). Glass, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 167, relied on the view that 

the open and obvious doctrine does not apply to ordinary negligence cases. However, the Illinois 

Supreme Court has rejected that conclusion. See Bruns, 2014 IL 116998, ¶¶ 13, 15-16 (explaining 

that the open and obvious doctrine affects whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty, the 

existence of which is a necessary prerequisite to any negligence case). Accordingly, we decline to 

follow Glass. Garcia, 2018 IL App (1st) 172204, ¶¶ 3, 16, 31, is a more recent pronouncement of 

this court that is in line with supreme court precedent. It held that the IPI Civil 120 series was 

proper when the injury was caused by condition on the property. That is the case here. 

¶ 35 The trial court correctly followed the Notes on Use in IPI Civil No. 120.08, which provide: 

“If the action alleges that an activity on the premises caused the injury or that the dangerous 

condition arose as part of the defendant’s business, use IPI 20.01 ***.” IPI Civil No. 120.08, Notes 

on Use. This case does not allege either circumstance justifying the use of IPI Civil No. 20.01. 

Plaintiff’s claim was that the City did not do anything on the premises—i.e., it failed to repair the 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 15 - 

sidewalk condition. The hole passively existed on the City’s property, and the City failed to repair 

it. Although City employees visited the location and entered repair recommendations into the 

City’s system, none of that evidence suggested that the City conducted any activity on the premise 

that created the condition. IPI Civil No. 20.01 was inapplicable because plaintiff’s injury was 

caused by the mere existence of the hole. Nor did the hole arise as part of the City’s business. Cf.

Reed, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 716-17 (the board located in the aisle and surrounded by the defendant’s 

merchandise was related to the defendant’s business because the defendant used such boards to 

display its merchandise); Wind, 272 Ill. App. 3d at 155 (the floor mats defendant’s employees 

installed to accommodate customers wishing to purchase the defendant’s products were related to 

the defendant’s business); Piper, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 652-53 (the pallet placed in the store by the 

defendant’s employees was an integral part of the defendant’s marketing scheme).

¶ 36 Thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on 

premises liability rather than ordinary negligence. 

¶ 37 We also note that, even if the court had abused its discretion, reversal would remain 

unwarranted because plaintiff cannot show prejudice from the use of IPI Civil No. 120.08. To 

show prejudice, “there must be a reasonable basis supporting the conclusion that, but for the error, 

the verdict might have been different.” Doe v. University of Chicago Medical Center, 2014 IL App 

(1st) 121593, ¶ 87. In addressing this question, the court “must view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the jury’s verdict.” Davis v. City of Chicago, 2014 IL App (1st) 122427, ¶ 70. 

¶ 38 The general verdict rule prevents plaintiff from establishing that the sole basis for the jury’s 

verdict was the use of IPI Civil No. 120.08 and the verdict might have been different but for its 

use. The general verdict rule provides that in the absence of any indication in the record as to which 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 16 - 

theory of liability the jury rested its decision on, a defendant may not obtain relief from the jury’s 

verdict if at least one theory of liability would be sufficient to sustain the verdict. Blockmon v. 

McClellan, 2019 IL App (1st) 180420, ¶ 21. “When there is a general verdict and more than one 

theory is presented, the verdict will be upheld if there was sufficient evidence to sustain either 

theory, and the [moving party], having failed to request special interrogatories, cannot complain.” 

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lazenby v. Mark’s Construction, Inc., 236 Ill. 2d 83, 101 

(2010). “In other words, where multiple claims, theories, or defenses were raised, a general verdict 

creates a presumption that the jury found in favor of the victorious party on every claim, theory, 

or defense raised.” Perez v. St. Alexius Medical Center, 2022 IL App (1st) 181887, ¶ 64. Thus, the 

general verdict rule applies unless plaintiff can show that the verdict was improper on “all of the 

theories of liability on which the jury’s verdict might rest.” (Emphasis omitted.) Blockmon, 2019 

IL App (1st) 180420, ¶ 21. 

¶ 39 Plaintiff challenges the jury’s verdict, based on the finding that she failed to prove the City 

“could reasonably expect that people on the sidewalk would not discover or realize the danger, or 

would fail to protect themselves against such danger.” But another potential basis supports the 

verdict that has nothing to do with that element of IPI Civil No. 120.08. Contributory negligence 

was a potential basis for the verdict, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to have concluded 

that plaintiff was more than 50% negligent where the weather was clear and dry during the daylight 

hours and she walked straight into an unobscured hole in the sidewalk. See Orzel v. Szewczyk, 391 

Ill. App. 3d 283, 290 (2009) (where verdict could have been based either on the plaintiff’s failure 

to meet her burden of proof or on contributory negligence, the general-verdict rule requires 
No. 1-22-1116 

- 17 - 

affirmance). Accordingly, we presume that the jury found that plaintiff was more than 50% 

contributorily negligent and affirm the judgment. 

¶ 40 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 41 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

¶ 42 Affirmed.
No. 1-22-1116 

- 18 - 

Martin v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 221116 

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 17-L-9485; 

the Hon. Joan E. Powell, Judge, presiding. 

Attorneys 

for 

Appellant: 

David Nemeroff, of Nemeroff Law Offices, Ltd., of Chicago, for 

appellant. 

Attorneys 

for 

Appellee: 

Mary B. Richardson-Lowry, Acting Corporation Counsel, of 

Chicago (Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Suzanne M. Loose, Stephen G. 

Collins, and Daniel E. Alperstein, Assistant Corporation Counsel, 

of counsel), for appellee.