Source: https://www.robertkreisman.com/birth-injury-lawyer/category/premise-liability/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:16:44+00:00

Document:
Illinois lawyers are often confused by the application of attacking motions under two distinct motion practice sections — the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS §5/2-615 and §5/2-619. The case decision found in Doe v. The University of Chicago Medical Center points out the distinct differences in how a §2-619 motion to dismiss should be applied. In the well-written article in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, May 19, 2015, authored by attorney Brion W. Doherty, Mr. Doherty analyzed the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in the Doe case, illustrating how §2-619 should be used.
In the Doe case, the plaintiff claimed to have been attacked and injured on her way to her car after working the night shift. The plaintiff had claimed that the University of Chicago Medical Center had promised her that it would it see to her safety in getting her to her car late at night. That was part of her agreement for working the night shift. The plaintiff claimed that her injuries were because the medical center had chosen not to comply with its promise to provide security at night.
In response to the complaint filed against it, the University of Chicago Medical Center filed a motion to dismiss under §2-619. It attached an affidavit by its head of security, which essentially contradicted the factual claims made by the plaintiff. The security part of the dispute was whether the plaintiff followed the hospital’s instructions on how to contact security in case of trouble.

References: §5
 §5
 v. 
 §2
 §2
 §2