Court Opinion

ID: 9718584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:27:31.17966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.523188
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The circuit court ruled, and Car City urges us to agree, that the natural-accumulation rule would apply to the instant case and that adhering to plaintiffs’ position would result in an abrogation of this long-standing rule. Flaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that they are not attempting to abrogate the natural-accumulation rule but, rather, that under these particular circumstances the general rule of premises liability concerning the duty of a possessor of land toward its business invitees should be the rule of law applied by the courts. I agree with plaintiffs’ position. The courts have specifically imposed a duty on the possessor of land in situations where a hazard was open and obvious but the harm to an invitee may reasonably be anticipated, such as when an invitee’s attention is distracted by goods on display or for some other reason the invitee is not focused on the hazard. See Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990). In Ward, our supreme court determined such duties as follows: “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, or that after a lapse of time he may forget the existence of the condition, even though he has discovered it or been warned; or where the condition is one which would not reasonably be expected, and for some reason, such as an arm full of bundles, it may be anticipated that the visitor will not be looking for it.’ W Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 61, at 427 (5th ed. 1984). See also 5 E Harper, F. James & 0. Gray, The Law of Torts § 27.13, at 244-47 (2d ed. 1986); J. Page, The Law of Premises Liability § 4.6, at 80-85 (2d ed. 1988). This is the position taken by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 343A (1965). That section provides in pertinent part: ‘(1) A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.’ (Emphasis added.) Comment e of section 343A(1) states the general rule that the owner or occupier may reasonably assume that invitees will exercise reasonable care for their own safety, and that ordinarily he need not take precautions against dangers which are known to the visitor or so obvious that the visitor may be expected to discover them. Comment f, however, explains that reason to expect harm to visitors from known or obvious dangers may arise ‘where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it. *** In such cases the fact that the danger is known, or is obvious, is important in determining whether the invitee is to be charged with contributory negligence, or assumption of risk. It is not, however, conclusive in determining the duty of the possessor, or whether he has acted reasonably under the circumstances. ’ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A, comment f, at 220 (1965). 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, and toward the standard expressed in section 343A(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).” Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 148-50. This court applied Ward and section 343A in Maschhoff v. National Super Markets, Inc., 230 Ill. App. 3d 169 (1992) (delivery man slipped and fell on liquid buildup in store). After citing Ward and quoting extensively from comment f of 343A, this court concluded that the injury was reasonably foreseeable, that plaintiff could have been distracted from the obvious conditions, and that, therefore, the questions of the defendant’s breach of duty and the plaintiffs comparative negligence were properly submitted to the jury. As directed by our supreme court in Ward, we must consider whether in the instant case the imposition of a duty meets with the following factors: “We recognize that the Restatement speaks to the more general question of liability, and not specifically to the existence of a duty. But we think the principles expressed there are consistent with the general duty of reasonable care owed to invitees and licensees, and they are relevant to the resolution of whether an injury was reasonably foreseeable. We emphasize, however, that since the existence of a duty turns in large part on public policy considerations, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden upon the defendant, as well as the likelihood of injury and the possible serious nature of such an injuryCJ must also be taken into account.” Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 151. The standards of premises-liability duty, as delineated in Ward, appropriately apply in the instant case. We have a situation in which the possessor of land is aware of the hazards posed by ice and snow and with such knowledge seeks to bring the invitee into the business-activity part of its premises with the intent of, and taking actions toward, diverting the invitee’s attention and changing the invitee’s focus to the goods and services offered by the possessor of land. Under those circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable by the possessor of land that an injury such as this might occur, and under these circumstances, it is both reasonable and appropriate that the burden should fall on the possessor of land. It is not an onerous burden on that possessor to alleviate the hazardous conditions so that the attention and focus of the invitee might safely be focused on the possessor’s business activities. In comparison, the circumstances of the instant case pose a substantial likelihood of injury. I also note that the activities of diverting the invitee’s attention and focus are for the benefit of the possessor of land, and accordingly, it is not unreasonable to place this duty on that party. Choosing to apply the duties delineated in Ward and the Restatement, rather than the natural-accumulation rule, does not constitute an abrogation of the natural-accumulation rule. That doctrine is quite alive and well, as noted in the cases cited by the majority. In those instances involving injuries on business premises, the rule has been readily applied to those areas adjacent to and utilized in the approaching of the area of commercial activity (sidewalks, parking lots), whereas the instant case involves the actual area of business activity. We may infer from these cases that the possessor of the business property has no reason to, and is not likely to, make any effort to divert the attention of a prospective customer who is approaching his commercial-activity area. In the instant case, however, the prospective customer who has entered the business-activity area is in the midst of an obvious hazard known to the property owner, and the property owner is actively diverting the customer’s attention and focus to his commercial activities. We should be hard put to conclude that under these circumstances the type of injury as occurred in this case would not be reasonably foreseeable. Concurrently, we should reasonably conclude .that removing the hazard the invitee faces when engaging in the possessor’s business activity is a minor burden on that possessor of land, given the hazard’s foreseeability and the commercial benefits from successful engagement with the invitee. The difference between the approaches to business establishment and the commercial-activity area of that business are clear, qualitative, and crucial. The Ward/ Restatement rule appropriately applies.