Court Opinion

ID: 9725632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:56:59.418608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:17.316255
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RATHJE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In effect, the majority proceeds under the assumption that Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990), and its progeny are still good law, and I shall do the same. The Ward court stated in relevant part: "Our holding does not impose on defendant the impossible burden of rendering its premises injury-proof. Defendant can still expect that its customers will exercise reasonable care for their own safety. We merely recognize that there may be certain conditions which, although they may be loosely characterized as 'known’ or 'obvious’ to customers, may not in themselves satisfy defendant’s duty of reasonable care. If the defendant may reasonably be expected to anticipate that even those customers in the general exercise of ordinary care will fail to avoid the risk because they are distracted or momentarily forgetful, then his duty may extend to the risk, posed by the condition. Whether in fact the condition itself served as adequate notice of its presence or whether additional precautions were required to satisfy the defendant’s duty are questions properly left to the trier of fact. The trier of fact may also consider whether the plaintiff was in fact guilty of negligence contributing in whole or in part to his injury, and adjust the verdict accordingly.” (Emphasis added.) Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 156-57. The majority mistakenly concludes that plaintiff’s deposition testimony precludes plaintiff’s cause of action from going forward. The fact that she did not precisely state, "My attention was distracted by the grapefruit in the bin,” is not dispositive. Plaintiff testified that she pushed her shopping cart over to the self-service bin of grapefruit. She reached down to pick up a grapefruit, which, after inspecting it, she put back. The bin was too wide to reach across, and she was interested in looking at the grapefruit on the other side. So she went to her left to walk around the bin. As she did, she tripped over the exposed corner of the pallet and fell. Her testimony indicates that she was likely behaving as shoppers typically do, i.e., she was intent upon the object(s) of her interest. Displays of goods, such as the grapefruit in the bin, have been viewed as distractions possibly requiring precautions. As the Ward court stated: "A rule more consistent with an owner’s or occupier’s general duty of reasonable care, however, recognizes that the 'obviousness’ of a condition or the fact that the injured party may have been in some sense 'aware’ of it may not always serve as adequate warning of the condition and of the consequences of encountering it. It is stated in Prosser & Keeton on Torts: '[I]n any case where the occupier as a reasonable person should anticipate an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee notwithstanding his knowledge, warning, or the obvious nature of the condition, something more in the way of precautions may be required. This is true, for example, where there is reason to expect that the invitee’s attention will be distracted, as by goods on display ***.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 148-49, quoting W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 61, at 427 (5th ed. 1984). In this instance, the questions of whether the exposed pallet corner served as adequate notice of its presence or whether additional precautions were necessary to satisfy defendant’s duty of reasonable care should be decided by the trier of fact.