April 2015 Case Notes & Comments

"All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity." ~ Gordie Howe

MONTHLY QUIZ: During team summer camp, Coach tells football Player and his teammates to run from the locker room to the practice field. While running, Player trips on a bumper in the shot-put pit area, falls and sustain injuries. Player sues School and others for negligence and willful and wanton conduct, alleging that School's failure to mow the grass in the track and field area constitutes "reckless disregard for [his] safety." School argues that it is immune from liability under Section 3-106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act) (745 ILCS 10/3-106) because the field is used for recreational purposes, not educational purposes. The Parties disagree as to whether Coach told the team to take a specific route on the way to the field, and as to whether the Act applies. Trial Court holds that School is immune under the Act and dismisses Player's case. Player appeals. Given the dispute over the instructions, should Trial Court have dismissed Player's willful wanton case against School? Does the Act apply to provide School with tort immunity? You be the judge. (Answer below).

PREMISES LIABILITY / OPEN AND OBVIOUS / DISTRACTION EXCEPTION: Plaintiff, a real-estate Appraiser, was taking measurements of a residential property.  Upon entering the backyard, Appraiser observed a 5 ½ foot retaining wall extending out perpendicular from the rear of the house.  Both the ground and the top of the retaining wall were covered in heavy snow.  Appraiser measured the low side of the house to the retaining wall, and then proceeded to measure the high side of the house to the retaining wall.  While simultaneously trying to keep his measuring tape level and looking for the edge of the retaining wall, Appraiser stepped off the top of the retaining wall, falling and injuring his back.  Defendants, homeowners, moved for summary judgment on the basis that the retaining wall was open and obvious, precluding liability.  Appraiser argued that the distraction exception applied to negate the open and obvious doctrine.  The Court held that a plaintiff should not be allowed to recover for self-created distractions that a defendant could never reasonably foresee---here, Appraiser's "distraction" was his performing measurements, which the homeowner Defendants would assume he could perform safely.  Further, the Court held that Appraiser's inability to find the edge of the retaining wall was not caused by a "distraction", but by natural conditions, i.e., the snow cover and bright sunlight.  Lucasey v. Plattner, 2015 IL App (4th) 140512 (Mar. 16, 2015).

APPRAISAL - AWARD NOT BINDING ON INSURED: Insured Property Owner submitted claim for damage to her home and personal property as a result of a fire which destroyed the attached garage at the insured property. Insurer prepared an estimate for repair of the damage and provided Insured with the name of a contractor; however, neither Insurer's designated contractor, nor any contractor contacted by Insured would perform the repairs for the estimated amount. Insured subsequently invoked the policy's appraisal condition. At appraisal, when the two party appraisers could not reach an agreement, the umpire issued an award to Insured which was reported to vastly undervalue the full damage to the property, as Insured had already completed substantial repairs prior to appraisal. Insurer subsequently issued payment based on the award for the purported actual cash value of the damage. Insured then filed suit for breach of contract and insurer bad faith. Insurer moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the appraisal award was binding on the parties and foreclosed any subsequent suit. The court denied Insurer's motion, noting that the language of the specific appraisal provision in the subject policy did not explicitly state that an appraisal award would be binding on the parties, or that a party's invocation of the appraisal condition would operate as a waiver of its right to file suit. As such, the court held that Insured was not bound by the appraisal award and was allowed to proceed with litigation. Torres v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. 14 C 2830, 2015 WL 920978 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2015). 

NEGLIGENCE - TRANSPORTATION BROKER LIABILITY: While making an illegal U-turn, Truck Driver steered his tractor-trailer into another vehicle, killing Victim. At the time of the collision, Driver was an employee of Carrier who, in turn, was transporting contents as an independent contractor for Logistics Company.  Victim's Estate sued Driver, Carrier and Logistics Company, alleging that the Logistics Company negligently hired, retained, and supervised the Contractor and Driver. The contract between Carrier and Logistics Company detailed the Company's role as a "transportation broker," and the Carrier's role as an "independent contractor." Logistics Company did not own, operate, or lease any of its own vehicles or equipment, nor did the company hire, train or license any of the truck drivers. The trial court granted Logistics Company summary judgment on the grounds that the company had no control over Carrier or Driver. In analyzing whether Logistics Company "knew or should have known" that Carrier and Driver were unfit, the appellate court considered Carrier's prior incident record, Carrier's federal licensing and "satisfactory" safety rating and Driver's lack of traffic tickets or moving violations. The courts also considered the condition of the equipment and vehicles. HELD: Summary judgment affirmed. Hayward v. C.H. Robinson Co., Inc., 2014 IL App (3d) 130530 (Dec. 9, 2014).

INDIANA NEWS: Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd. is pleased to announce that Matthew S. McLean recently joined the Indiana Roll of Attorneys and is now licensed to practice law in Indiana. Matthew works primarily in the Firm's General Liability and Subrogation practice groups.

ANSWER TO QUIZ: The Trial Court should not have dismissed Player's case. Summary judgment should only be granted where there are no genuine issues of material fact. Here, there were factual disputes concerning the route team took when running to the field and whether Coach directed Player to run in a particular direction. With regard to the Act, Section 3-106 of the Act provides immunity to public entities from liability for conditions existing on public property used for "recreational purposes," such as parks and playgrounds, unless "guilty of willful and wanton conduct", proximately causing an injury. Because there were open questions as to whether the field was used for recreational and/or educational purposes and questions regarding whether Coach knew about the dangerous condition the bumper presented, the Appellate Court could not reach the issue of tort immunity under the Act. Peters v. Herrin Community Unit School District No. 4, 2015 IL App (5th) 130465 (Feb. 27, 2015).

Past Publications

2022

August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022

2021

December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021

2020

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020

2019

December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019

2018

December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

2017

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017

2016

December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016

2015

December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

2014

December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014

2013

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013

2012

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012

2011

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011

2010

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

2009

December 2009