Court Opinion

ID: 9738549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:56.881559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.865352
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurs: I write separately only because of the statement of the majority opinion that plaintiffs premises liability argument must fail because “the plaintiff did not stand in such a relationship that the law would impose obligations on the defendant under the facts and circumstances of this case.” 386 Ill. App. 3d at 683. Plaintiff alleged that she was a customer at defendant’s store and, therefore, it is clear that the law did impose a duty on defendant to make sure that there was no condition on the premises that would expose the plaintiff or any other business invitee to the unreasonable risk of injury. That being said, it is clear that plaintiff fails to plead a cause of action under premises liability as she does not plead and cannot plead any breach of defendant’s duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. It is clear what happened. Plaintiff was trying to open the tailgate of her own truck, which just happened to be on defendant’s premises. The tailgate was stuck, plaintiff kept tugging on it until the tailgate finally gave way and opened. Plaintiff went flying and struck her head. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was injured while lifting landscaping materials. Discovery established that this allegation was false. Both the lawsuit and this appeal are frivolous. I would sanction plaintiff and her attorneys for this appeal. 155 Ill. 2d R. 137.