Court Opinion

ID: 9717413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:03:01.391786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.125123
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WOLFSON, specially concurring: While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I also believe use of the natural/unnatural accumulation approach in this case is an analytic sidetrack. While we are bound to analyze slip-and-fall cases in terms of natural or unnatural accumulation of ice and/or snow (see McCann v. Bethesda Hospital, 80 Ill. App. 3d 544, 548-49, 400 N.E.2d 16 (1979)), I see no reason to do so in this case. I would apply traditional tort principles — to prevail, plaintiff must show a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 140, 554 N.E.2d 223 (1990). The difficult question here is one of duty. Whether a duty exists is a question of law. Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 140. That means we must consider not only the reasonable foreseeability and likelihood of injury, “but also (3) the magnitude of the burden on defendant in guarding against injury and (4) the consequences of placing that burden on defendant.” LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380, 389, 706 N.E.2d 441 (1998). Whether a duty exists is an inquiry shaped by public policy. LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 388. In the case before us we are given few facts concerning the nature of the protrusions from the building. We are not told whether some defect about them created an unreasonable risk of harm to people walking past the building. Still, there is evidence all the protrusions except one had four-foot-long ice formations on them. That, in addition to some evidence the building owner and the restaurant owner had notice of the dangerous condition, persuades me the right result has been reached.