Court Opinion

ID: 9884616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:03:31.079559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.715100
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: I dissent. The well-settled law of Illinois is that ridges and ruts in snow or ice caused by ordinary traffic constitute a natural accumulation of snow or ice even where they are caused in part by application of snow- and ice-melting chemicals followed by refreezing. (See Erasmus v. Chicago Housing Authority (1980), 86 Ill. App. 3d 142, 145, 407 N.E.2d 1031, 1033; Harkins v. System Parking, Inc. (1989), 186 Ill. App. 3d 869, 872, 542 N.E.2d 921, 924; Stiles v. Panorama Lanes, Inc. (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 896, 899, 438 N.E.2d 241, 243.) The majority holds, however, that where a landowner directs a plaintiff down a path, or selects an area for pedestrians to travel, as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, the ridges and ruts in the ice and snow do not result solely from ordinary traffic and therefore the accumulation may be unnatural or constitute an aggravation of a natural accumulation. I think the majority draws a distinction without a difference. In nearly every case in which ridges and ruts appear in snow or ice, it is in an area which the defendant has selected for travellers to use, either by establishing a parking lot, or locating an entry or exit door. I fail to see how the instant situation differs materially from these other cases. Indeed, in Smalling v. La Salle National Bank (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 894, 433 N.E.2d 713, a summary judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed where the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant negligently directed the plaintiff to use a particular ramp which was covered with a natural accumulation of ice and snow. I think the instant case is no different from any other case where ruts and ridges in snow or ice are caused by vehicular or pedestrian traffic. In such a case, the landowner has no liability for injuries resulting from what is a natural accumulation of snow or ice. Furthermore, while plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant incorrectly applied ice- and snow-melting chemicals, it fails to allege any facts to demonstrate the way in which such application was incorrect. However, it is well settled that a landowner is not liable for injuries resulting from alternate melting and freezing of ice and snow as a result of the application of chemicals or salt. (See Harkins, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 873, 542 N.E.2d at 924 (and cases cited therein).) The use of such chemicals does not aggravate a natural accumulation of snow or ice or result in an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice. Finally, I think the majority’s reliance on the dissent in Stiles is most unwise. Relying on that dissent, the majority holds that ruts and ridges resulting from traffic may constitute an unnatural accumulation and that the question of whether an accumulation of snow or ice is natural or unnatural is a question of fact for the jury. The dissent in Stiles did not argue that the question of whether an accumulation is natural or unnatural is a question for the jury. Instead, in that dissent, Justice Harrison expressed his opinion that, as a matter of law, ridges and ruts on a parking lot caused by vehicular traffic changed the initial natural accumulation of ice and snow into an unnatural accumulation. (Stiles, 107 Ill. App. 3d at 901, 438 N.E.2d at 244.) Justice Harrison further opined that, because the vehicular traffic was a result of defendant’s implied invitation onto his premises for business purposes, the unnatural accumulation was created by defendant, through defendant’s use of the area concerned. (107 Ill. App. 3d at 901, 438 N.E.2d at 244.) Therefore, Justice Harrison opined, summary judgment in favor of defendant was improper. By essentially following Justice Harrison’s dissent in Stiles, the majority is, in effect, creating a new duty on landowners. As I have already pointed out, the law has long been settled that a landowner is not liable for injuries resulting from ridges and ruts in snow or ice caused by vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the ordinary course of business. To hold otherwise, as the majority does, is to make a landowner an insurer of his visitors’ safety, something which the law has long declined to do in snow and ice cases. To hold that ridges and ruts caused by traffic may result in liability to the landowner would require the landowner to completely remove all snow and ice from his premises, something which may be impossible and certainly impractical, or to close his premises to all traffic. Such a result is patently ridiculous. For these reasons, I cannot agree with the decision of the majority. Because a landowner is not liable for injuries resulting from a natural accumulation of snow or ice, and because I believe plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead facts which remove her case from this general rule, I believe the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. I therefore dissent.