Court Opinion

ID: 9519551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:18:32.205598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:29.632048
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE RYAN, also dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority of my colleagues because I feel that under the facts of this case a reasonably prudent man would not anticipate danger to a person using the sidewalk in question under the circumstances present on the date of the accident. Thus, no question of fact was presented for a jury’s determination. Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 601, 605. Although this court in Arvidson rejected the practice of fixing arbitrary standards with mathematical precision as to what constitutes minor defects in sidewalks which do not render a city legally responsible, I fear that the effect of the majority opinion is to fix such a line of demarcation at “about 2 inches.” The opinion states that the height variation of 1 1/8 inches established by the city’s evidence, “would indicate that, in view of the surrounding circumstances, no cause of action would lie due to the minimal nature of the defect.” The opinion suggests, however, that the jury may have rejected the city’s evidence and accepted the plaintiff’s version that the variation was “about 2 inches” and states: “In our judgment a reasonably prudent person should anticipate some danger to those walking upon a sidewalk in the condition described by plaintiff. ” Somehow, the magic words concerning height variation in sidewalks necessary to create a question of fact for the jury seem to have been established at “about 2 inches.” That was the language the court considered sufficient in Arvidson and the same “about 2 inches” has now been accepted by the majority of this court while stating that a 1 1/8-inch variation was not actionable. I think it is necessary that this court definitely reject the acceptance of any arbitrary measurement as signifying that a question of fact for the jury exists and that we adhere to previous pronouncements that the reasonably-prudent-man test must be applied to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It is my belief that a height variation of “about 2 inches” of two adjoining slabs of concrete in a sidewalk may well present a question for the jury under the facts of one case such as Arvidson, but that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that the city, as a matter of law, was not negligent in permitting this particular variation of “about 2 inches” to exist. The majority acknowledges that an unacceptable height variation in one location, such as a busy commercial area, may be nonactionable in another area, such as a residential one. Nonetheless, the majority adheres to the “about 2 inches” criterion accepted by this court in Arvidson under facts and circumstances that bear no resemblance to the facts and circumstances in the case now under consideration. In Cogdill v. City of Marion (1959), 22 Ill. App. 2d 99, 103, Shepard v. City of Aurora (1955), 5 Ill. App. 2d 12, 25, and Bradshaw v. City of East St. Louis (1954), 3 Ill. App. 2d 300, the appellate courts of this State have recognized that the municipality is only required to maintain its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition considering the use to be made and the amount and kind of travel which may be fairly expected upon them. In Welch v. City of Chicago (1925), 236 Ill. App. 520, 534, aff’d (1926), 323 Ill. 498, the court stated: “Ordinary care on the part of the City as it pertains to such an area as exists at State and Madison streets *** —one of the busiest comers in the world — may be said to require a closer attention to physical conditions, and a somewhat smoother and safer surface in the street than is required where travel is sparse ***.” This court in Arvidson, after acknowledging that slight inequalities in the level of the sidewalk or other minor defects are not actionable, emphasized that the evidence in the case it was considering established that the 2-inch difference in level “was near the curb of a business street, on which there were abutting stores and parking meters, so that it could reasonably be foreseen that the area would be traversed by pedestrians enroute to the stores.” (11 Ill. 2d 601, 609.) In fact, the plaintiff in that case had parked her automobile, inserted a coin in the parking meter, and, as she turned and walked toward a store, stepped on the uneven pavement and fell. The facts in the case we are now considering present a sharply different picture. Here, the defect was located in a residential area. It appears from the testimony and photographs in evidence that the sidewalk was quite wide, plaintiff’s evidence indicating it was between 5 and 6 feet wide. The sidewalk runs north and south on the west side of North Ridgeway Avenue. The photographs show that there is a parkway between the sidewalk and the street and that there is a hedge at least knee high at the edge of the parkway adjacent to the east edge of the sidewalk. The spot where plaintiff fell, as indicated by a mark she made on a photograph, is on the east edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the hedge, which would be a part of the sidewalk that would not customarily be used by pedestrians. The plaintiff was walking in that area on the day she was injured because there was an accumulation of snow on the sidewalk and she was following a path in the snow that had been made by people who had been walking on the sidewalk. The raised part of the sidewalk was covered with snow and the plaintiff did not notice this defect. However, when she stumbled the snow was pushed away from the defect and she noticed that the square to the south of where she had stumbled was about 2 inches higher than the square to the north. There is another reason which convinces me that as a matter of law, under the facts of this case, the city should not be liable. The plaintiff, herself, by way of explaining the difference between her evidence that the level variation was about 2 inches and the city’s evidence that it measured only 11/8 inches, has suggested that judicial notice be taken of the fact that changes in temperatures and seasons in Chicago can cause the sidewalks to rise and fall in elevation. The evidence would indicate that the variation in the sidewalk level fluctuates from year to year — a variation of 2 inches one year may be 1 1/8 inches the next year and vice versa. Obviously, a city cannot be expected to maintain all sidewalks perfectly level and free from all defects at all times. I also believe that a city cannot be expected to estimate that a variation in height óf 1 1/8 inches, which the majority holds is nonactionable, will be increased to about 2 inches at another time of year. In Lance v. Senior (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 516, this court held that whether the law imposes a duty on an individual with regard to another does not depend upon foreseeability alone. The likelihood of injury, the burden of guarding against it, and the consequences of placing that burden upon the defendant must all be taken into account. Through hindsight most events are foreseeable, which, I suggest, accounts for the qualification as that term relates to duty, that the event be reasonably foreseeable. In my opinion, the minimal nature of the defect and its location in a residential area on the edge of a sidewalk close to a hedge where a pedestrian would not customarily walk; the fact that plaintiff was using that part of the sidewalk because she was following a path in the snow; and the fact that she could not see the defect because it was covered with snow renders the foreseeability of this event quite remote and causes it to be somewhat less than reasonably foreseeable. Applying the criteria as to duty this court adopted in Lance, the likelihood of injury from the city’s failure to repair this minor defect is slight. On the other hand, the burden that would be placed on the city to repair all of .the minor defects of this nature on the hundreds of miles of sidewalk located in its residential areas would be substantial. Also, the constant surveillance required to estimate the changes climatic conditions may render from one season to another would be next to impossible to perform. For the reasons I have at length stated, I would hold that as a matter of law, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the city of Chicago is not liable.