Court Opinion

ID: 9819206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:16.007322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:01.242032
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment based upon the holding of Hartung v. Maple Investment & Development Corp., 243 Ill. App. 3d 811 (1993). Where the surface at issue is exposed to the elements, the de minimus rule renders minor defects not actionable as a matter of law. See Tracy v. Village of Lombard, 116 Ill. App. 3d 563, 569-70 (1983) (distinguishing "sidewalk” cases from "indoor flooring” cases based upon exposure to the weather). As in Hartung, the defective surface at issue in the matter sub judice was exposed to the elements. I see no reason to hold, as the majority does, that the application of the de minimus rule depends upon the degree of exposure to the elements. I would prefer the certainty of a bright-line test that seems to have developed in the case law interpreting the de minimus rule: Where the surface is exposed to the elements, the public or private owner of the surface should not be liable for injuries resulting from slight surface deviations. For the reasons discussed, I respectfully dissent.