Court Opinion

ID: 9779807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:47:48.748589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:36.284435
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: The court today holds that the natural accumulation rule reheves common carriers of the duty to provide passengers a safe place to alight. This conclusion not only ignores the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, but it is also at odds with this court’s case law. I therefore respectfully dissent. Generally, whether a duty exists turns on whether the plaintiff and the defendant stood in such a relationship to one another that the law imposes on the defendant an obligation of reasonable conduct for the plaintiff’s benefit. Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006). The inquiry involves four factors, including the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant. Marshall, 222 Ill. 2d at 436-37. In applying this analysis, Illinois courts also impose a particular standard of care on those involved in four “special relationships” which are described in section 314A of the Restatement of Torts. Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78, 88 (2007); Restatement (Second) of Torts §314A (1965). The four special relationships giving rise to a duty to protect another from harm are: (1) carrier-passenger, (2) innkeeper-guest, (3) business invitorinvitee, and (4) voluntary custodian — protecting under certain limited circumstances. Iseberg, 227 Ill. 2d at 88. Applying these factors, this court has long held that a common carrier owes its passengers the highest duty of care consistent with the practical operation of its conveyances. Rotheli v. Chicago Transit Authority, 7 Ill. 2d 172 (1955). The carrier is bound to furnish the passenger an opportunity to safely alight from the conveyance and reach a place of safety. Katamay v. Chicago Transit Authority, 53 Ill. 2d 27 (1972). This case raises the question of whether “the natural accumulation rule” reheves a common carrier of its duty to passengers where snow and ice are concerned. In Illinois, the natural accumulation rule arose in the context of municipal liability for care of public streets and sidewalks. Graham v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638 (1931). Municipalities are not liable for the failure to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. The rule has also been applied to private landowners as well. Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill. 2d 133 (1953). Tort Immunity Act The General Assembly has codified the natural accumulation rule with respect to municipalities in section 3 — 105 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Although the CTA is a legislatively created governmental agency, the General Assembly specifically excluded it from the Tort Immunity Act’s protection. 745 ILCS 10/2 — 101(b) (West 2008). The legislature has also codified the rule with respect to private citizens arising from their negligent attempts to remove ice and snow from sidewalks adjoining their residences in the Snow Removal Act. See 745 ILCS 75/1 (West 2008). The legislature’s action indicates its intent that the CTA not receive the benefit of the natural accumulation rule, although other local governmental agencies do, as well as homeowners. The General Assembly’s action therefore forecloses the court’s holding today. Illinois Common Law Other reasons, apart from the Tort Immunity Act, also support the conclusion that the natural accumulation rule has no application to this case. This court has never explicitly addressed whether the natural accumulation rule trumps a common carrier’s duty of care.1 Our appellate court has concluded that the rule does apply to common carriers (Serritos v. Chicago Transit Authority, 153 Ill. App. 3d 265 (1987); Sheffer v. Springfield Airport Authority, 261 Ill. App. 3d 151 (1994)), although I question the soundness of its analysis. The appellate court’s conclusion is predicated on the fact that the natural accumulation rule shields a business invitor from any liability to invitees from the failure to remove or take other precautions against dangers inherent in natural accumulations of snow and ice. This is so even though a business invitor ordinarily owes invitees a duty of reasonable care. See generally Smalling v. La Salle National Bank of Chicago, 104 Ill. App. 3d 894 (1982); Watson v. J.C. Penney Co., 237 Ill. App. 3d 976 (1992). Applying the same reasoning, the appellate court has similarly used the rule to shield common carriers from liability to passengers from the failure to remove or take precautions against natural accumulations of snow and ice. Serritos, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 271-72. In both situations, the holdings are based on the fact that in northern climates, like ours, where ice and snow are a fact of life, people are aware of the hazards posed by such conditions, and it is impractical to require property owners and carriers to remove snow and ice. See Cronin v. Brownlie, 348 Ill. App. 448 (1952). In other words, snow and ice pose dangers that are open and obvious to all who live in climates such as ours. The appellate court’s analysis is problematic on several levels. None of the cases satisfactorily reconcile the natural accumulation rule with the duties that the law recognizes as owed to either a business invitee or a common carrier passenger. In this respect, the appellate court’s holdings are at odds with this court’s decision in Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990). There, this court discussed the duties owed by a store to its customers with respect to conditions on its premises. The customer had walked into a concrete post, which he did not see because he was carrying a large mirror which obstructed his view. This court rejected K mart’s contention that it had no duty to warn of the condition because it was not foreseeable that its customers would fail to observe the concrete post. We specifically recognized 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.” Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 148-49, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §343A (1965). The defendant therefore had a duty to protect the customer from the condition. Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 149. In the wake of Ward, a business owner’s duty of reasonable care for conditions on its premises extends to those whom it should expect will not realize the danger or will fail to protect themselves against it. According to Ward, “[wjhether 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.” Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 156-57. Ward also acknowledged the “manifest trend of the courts in this country is away from the traditional rule absolving, ipso facto, owners and occupiers of land from liability for injuries resulting from known or obvious conditions” on their land. Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 150. As noted, this court’s adoption of the Restatement position reflected a growing judicial awareness that occupiers of premises are generally in a better position in modern society to protect the public from hazards than are invitees who must go into public places as part of daily life. This view serves to encourage landowners to repair defects, rather than to keep them “open and obvious” in order to avoid liability under the traditional approach. It thus appropriately balances the interests of landowners and invitees by setting out “a requirement of due care to make the conditions reasonably safe — a requirement that might well be satisfied by warning or obviousness in any given case, but that would not be so satisfied invariably.” 5 F. Harper, F. James & D. Gray, The Law of Torts §27.13, at 241 (2d ed. 1986). Ward’s reliance on section 343 of the Restatement has significance to the application of the natural accumulation rule. Simply put, the rule is inconsistent with the principles stated in section 343 because it dilutes the owner’s duty and undermines basic principles of public responsibility. Hammond v. Allegretti, 262 Ind. 82, 311 N.E.2d 821 (1974). Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized as much. See Kremer v. Carr’s Food Center, Inc., 462 P.2d 747 (Alaska 1969) (relying on Restatement to reject the natural accumulation rule).2 For example, in Kremer v. Carr’s Food Center, Inc., a grocer’s customer fell on an icy rut on an unsalted ice- and snow-covered parking lot maintained for the use of the grocer’s customers. The Alaska Supreme Court held that the case was governed by existing Alaska tort case law which approved the definition of the duty owed by a possessor of land to an invitee as set forth in section 343 of the Restatement: “Section 343 is controlling here. A jury could have found: (a) that Carr’s possessed the parking lot and knew the condition of its surface, (b) that Carr’s should have realized that this condition involved an unreasonable risk of harm to its business invitees, (c) that Carr’s should have expected that its business invitees would not discover or realize the danger, or should have anticipated that they would fail to protect themselves against a danger they did discover or realize, or should otherwise have anticipated harm to invitees despite the fact that the danger was known or obvious to them, and (d) that Carr’s failed to exercise reasonable care to protect business invitees, such as [plaintiff], from the dangerous surface conditions in its parking lot.” Kremer, 462 P.2d at 749-50. Relevant here too is the court’s thoughts on the weather: “Alaska’s climatic conditions do not metamorphize all risks arising from ice and snow conditions into reasonable risks for the business invitee. Nor are we persuaded by appellee Carr’s policy argument that in Alaska it would result in unreasonable costs to the private-commercial possessor of land to require the possessor to clear ice and snow, or otherwise remedy conditions which amount to unreasonable risks of harm to its business invitees.” Kremer, 462 P.2d at 752. The court noted that the “mere fact” that “snow and ice conditions prevail for many months throughout various locations in Alaska” was not “in and of itself sufficient rationale for the insulation of the possessor of land from liability to his business invitee.” Kremer, 462 P.2d at 752. Similarly, the Michigan Supreme Court cited its recognition of the principles in section 343 of the Restatement as the basis for its overruling of the natural accumulation rule. Quinlivan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 395 Mich. 244, 235 N.W.2d 732 (1975). The court explicitly rejected the “the prominently cited notion that ice and snow hazards are obvious to all and therefore may not give rise to liability.” Quinlivan, 395 Mich, at 261, 235 N.W.2d at 740. See also Isaacson v. Husson College, 297 A.2d 98 (Me. 1972); M. Polelle, Is the Natural Accumulation Rule All Wet? 26 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 631, 646-48 (1995) (noting that most states have rejected the natural accumulation rule in favor of a standard of due care). As I indicated earlier, the appellate court’s application of the natural accumulation rule to common carriers was predicated on the basis that the rule shields business owners from liability for their invitees. That rationale is questionable in light of this court’s decision in Ward and its reliance on section 343 of the Restatement of Torts. For that reason, I would not apply the rule to common carriers. Conclusion In view of both Illinois statutory and common law, I would hold that a common carrier’s standard of care trumps the natural accumulation rule. That is, the duty of care should extend to the kind of risk encountered by plaintiff here, a risk which is not only foreseeable but is likely to cause injury to passengers. It appears from the trial testimony that the CTA has employees whose specific job responsibilities include checking for safety from snow and ice. Therefore, it is not unreasonable or impractical to impose such a duty on the carrier as the court today states. 238 111. 2d at 232-33. Certainly, it is not unduly burdensome for a conductor to warn passengers as they alight from the train to watch for ice on the platform. This would not impose any greater burden than already imposed on the CTA as to other sorts of open and obvious conditions, such as an extended platform flat or unnatural accumulations of water and ice. Nor would it render the CTA absolutely liable whenever a passenger slipped on ice or snow because, under Ward, a jury would have to decide whether the parties acted reasonably. I must also point out that today’s decision is at odds with this court’s recent decision in Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006). There, a majority of this court held that a special relationship, standing alone, is sufficient to establish the affirmative duty to protect a business invitee from the tortious conduct of a third party. The plaintiff, who was in the Burger King restaurant, was injured by a car which crashed through the wall of the building. The court held that it was a jury question as to whether Burger King’s decision not to have concrete pillars and poles outside the restaurant comported with its duty to its patrons. If Burger King has a duty to protect its diners from an airborne car, then the CTA should also have a duty protect its passengers from icy conditions on its train platforms. See J. Powell, Marshall v. Burger King Corp.: Making a Mess of “Duty” for Businesses in Illinois, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 95, 95 n.l (Fall 2007). Finally, I am disappointed by the court’s failure to acknowledge any of the legal arguments made in this dissent, even though these arguments were raised by the parties. Such a failure unfortunately serves only to leave the impression of a result-oriented approach to judicial decisionmaking that undercuts public confidence in the courts. The parties, as well as the people of this state, deserve opinions from this court which are in harmony with the statutes passed by our legislature and which reconcile decisional law. As I have pointed out, the General Assembly has not given the CTA the benefit of the natural accumulation rule. This represents an explicit statement of the public policy of this state that I, unlike my colleagues, am unwilling to ignore. By its actions today, the court has indicated that it can better form the public policy of this state than can the General Assembly, even though this court regularly states that it is the General Assembly that is the branch of government uniquely suited for that role. See Boub v. Township of Wayne, 183 Ill. 2d 520, 535 (1998). In Chicago, when a snowstorm hits, elected officials often tell citizens to stay off of the roads and to use public transportation in order to facilitate snow removal measures. Although municipalities are immunized by the Tort Immunity Act from liability for snow removal, the CTA is not, which serves to encourage citizens to use it as directed by city officials. Today’s decision ignores the protection that the General Assembly has seen fit to give the users of the CTA and puts those citizens who follow officials’ directions in potential harm’s way with no recourse for the damages they might incur if injured on an icy CTA platform. I, therefore, would reverse the decision of the appellate court and reinstate the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff. JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this dissent. Dissent Upon Denial of Rehearing  The court cites McElligott v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 459 (1967), as a case in which the natural accumulation rule was applied to a common carrier. This is somewhat misleading in that the plaintiffs decedent in that case was not the carrier’s passenger. Rather, he was driving a car which slid on a street which belonged to the carrier as part its right of way. As such, the duty of care owed in that case was that of ordinary care. See Katamay, 53 Ill. 2d at 31 (explaining that status of being a passenger triggers the common carrier’s duty to the highest degree of care for the safety of an individual).   I note that Kremer was cited with approval by this court in Ward. Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 150.