HUNDLEY LAW GROUP » 4th Dist

Recovery for slip and fall injuries is further muddied – Hope v. Hope

HLG — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:11:32 +0000

Hope v. Hope , No. 4-09-0707 (March 4, 2010). The fourth district upheld summary judgment for homeowner parents whose young adult daughter fell descending muddy steps (caused by the mother’s gardening activities). The daughter had encountered the muddy steps earlier in the day when she arrived at her parents’ home, but relied on the distraction exception, stating that while in the house (eating, sleeping, studying, and watching TV) she had forgotten about mud being on steps. The court held that since those activities did not occur during her fall, as is the case in other applications of the distraction exception, the exception did not apply. Essentially the court held that the distraction exception is not a “forgetfulness exception.” That sounds fine, except that the language that the court quotes from the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 207 Ill. 2d 33 (2003), states quite clearly that the exception is meant if a person will “be distracted . . . or will forget what he has discovered or will fail to protect himself against it.”

White v. Garlock Sealing Technologies

HLG — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:18:43 +0000

White v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, No. 4-09-0036 (February 8, 2010). Persons whom a corporate or institutional party may be required to produce at trial under Rule 237(b) includes persons who are in a specific relationship to the party (as officers, directors, or employees) but does not also include those other persons who are under the party’s control.

Norman v. Brandt

HLG — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:48:27 +0000

Norman v. Brandt, No. 4-09-0246 (February 4, 2010). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, who offered to lead cars of friends who were heading to lake to swim, drove his vehicle “in concert” with driver of vehicle from which Plaintiff was thrown to cause his injuries and death. Plaintiff’s vehicle was following closely behind Defendant on a narrow country road and careened off road and rolled over in field.

Court upheld summary judgment for Defendant, however, finding that althoug Defendant exceeded speed limit, he did not commit tort in concert, per Restatement of Torts Section 876, as he was not attempting to race, horseplay, or drive in way to encourage or substantially assist the other driver to drive negligently.