Court Opinion

ID: 9779856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:51:38.306776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:43.242021
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: Defendant opened a self-service area in front of its Morton, Illinois, store. Customers were invited, or at least permitted, to drive their vehicles directly to the front of the store, where they would pick up large bags of product and then carry them a short distance to their vehicles. Customers would then park their vehicles and walk into the store to pay for the product, thus completing the transaction. However, in order to utilize the convenience of this self-service feature, the customer first had to safely traverse an obstacle which the defendant had placed on the ground directly in front of the product. The only way to access the product was by stepping onto and over the obstacle, which was in the form of a wooden device approximately four foot square and four inches in height. The surface of this device was not level. Rather, the entire surface consisted of a series of grooves running across the entire length. These grooves ran either parallel or perpendicular to the building and the product. Each of these grooves was approximately four inches deep and was just wide enough to trap a human foot. All reasonable persons would agree that the obstacle was dangerous. If a customer’s foot became trapped in one of these grooves, serious injury could occur. When Kathleen Kleiber stepped in one of the grooves while attempting to load some product into her truck, seriously injuring her leg, the defendant professed that it simply could not have seen that happening. The trial court, and the majority in the instant appeal, agreed — finding that, as a matter of law, the defendant could not have foreseen that Kathleen would choose to “deliberately encounter” the obstacle placed there by the defendant. I disagree. I would find that it was reasonably foreseeable that an invitee would choose to deliberately encounter the obstacle placed in her path by the defendant, despite the obvious danger in doing so. Thus, I would hold that summary judgment was inappropriate. A possessor of land owes a duty of care even in the face of a known and obvious danger if the possessor of the land should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge. Simmons v. American Drug Stores, Inc., 329 Ill. App. 3d 38, 44 (2002), citing Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 149 (1990). Harm may be reasonably anticipated when a possessor of land “has reason to expect that the invitee will proceed to encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonable [person] in [that] position the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk.” Simmons, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 44, citing LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380, 391 (1998). Moreover, where a hazard is known and obvious, “liability stems from the knowledge of the possessor of the premises, and what the possessor ‘had reason to expect’ the invitee would do in the face of the hazard. [Citations.]” LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 392. The majority posits two reasons for finding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Kathleen would choose to step on the dangerous obstacle. First, Kathleen had another option available to her rather than traversing the obstacle placed in front of the product by the defendant, since she could have sought assistance from one of the defendant’s employees. Second, it would only have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that Kathleen would choose to encounter the obstacle if her continued employment depended upon it. I disagree with both propositions. A plaintiff need not establish that there was no reasonable alternative to encountering the dangerous condition in order to establish that the possessor of the land would have reason to expect that the invitee would choose to face the hazard. LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 393. To impose this requirement upon the plaintiff would “require a court to decide foreseeability by measuring the reasonableness of the entrant’s actions, and not those of the landowner, even though the Restatement plainly requires otherwise.” (Emphasis in original.) LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 393. Here the question is whether a triable fact exists as to whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation that a customer would walk onto the hazardous obstacle in order to acquire the product without taking the time to seek assistance. The defendant obviously intended that customers would take advantage of the self-service option.2 It would be reasonable to find that a customer might take advantage of that option despite the obvious danger presented by the hazard. A jury could properly conclude that the benefit in time and convenience of availing oneself of the self-service option presented by the defendant would outweigh any apparent risks, regardless of the availability of help from the defendant. Thus, I would hold that the plaintiff has presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the deliberate-encounter exception applies. Simmons, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 45; LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 391. I also disagree with the majority’s determination that the deliberate-encounter exception is not applicable in the instant matter because the plaintiff did not have an economic reason for choosing to encounter the danger, such as a job requirement. 406 Ill. App. 3d at 260. The deliberate-encounter exception does not require that the plaintiff have an economic reason for encountering the danger. Simmons, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 45 (customer’s encounter with dangerous exit was not an economic necessity). Rather, the exception is triggered whenever the possessor of the premises has reason to expect that the invitee would choose to face the hazard despite the obvious risk. LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 392. For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that a triable issue of fact remains as to the defendant’s reasonable expectations as to whether the plaintiff would choose to deliberately encounter the hazard the defendant placed in front of the product. This triable issue of fact would preclude summary judgment. I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.  It is reasonable to surmise that a merchant makes self-service options available to its customers in order to reduce the number of employees.