However, little can be discerned from these photocopies. Following arguments, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. In a cause of action based on negligence, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty and an injury proximately resulting from a breach of that duty. Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law to be determined by the court and thus may be determined on a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Orders granting summary judgment are subject to de novo review.
The general rule with regard to the duty of a municipality to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition is that, because pedestrians are not intended users of streets, a municipality does not owe a duty of reasonable care to pedestrians who attempt to cross a street outside the crosswalks. Courts have recognized a narrow exception to this rule, finding that pedestrians entering or exiting legally parked vehicles on the street are intended and permitted users of the street in the area around the vehicle. 154 Ill. 2d at 213. The location of the plaintiff at the time of the injury is therefore relevant in determining whether the municipality owes him a duty of care. 148 Ill. 2d at 425.