Court Opinion

ID: 9527610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:56.990847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:57.097564
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint because, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true, the complaint fails to demonstrate a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury which occurred in this case. The complaint contains no claim that the exercycle was in a dangerous or defective condition. All the complaint shows was that the exercycle was in an area of the residence to which this 21!z-year-old child had access, and when the exercycle was operated by another child, the plaintiff was injured when he stuck his fingers into the spokes of the machine. Section 2 of the Premises Liability Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 80, par. 302) imposes a duty upon a homeowner-occupier to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises for those persons lawfully upon the premises. However, that statute does not impose a duty upon a homeowner-occupier to insure the safety of toddlers who might roam throughout the premises without supervision. In our increasingly litigious society, our courts are often faced with the difficult challenge of making specific value judgments about the duties to be imposed upon the people of this State. This case is no exception. The plaintiff has asked this court to find that defendant was under a legal obligation to warn and protect a 21/2-year-old child against the potential danger a household item might present. However, every household item might present a danger to a 21/2-year-old child. The plaintiff has not pleaded any extraordinary liability facts, nor has the plaintiff effectively argued why social policy should recognize such a broad duty. Most modern households are filled with items which could injure a toddler who is left free to roam and give vent to his curiosity. I do not believe it appropriate for this court to find a duty upon a homeowner to insure that this roaming, curious toddler will not be injured. This duty appropriately belongs with the child’s parents or other person to whose supervision the child has been entrusted. I fear the holding in this case gives new meaning to the term “child-proofing” a home.