http://www.hundleylaw.com Trial and Appellate Litigation Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:55:06 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/05/recovery-for-slip-and-fall-injuries-is-further-muddied-hope-v-hope/ http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/05/recovery-for-slip-and-fall-injuries-is-further-muddied-hope-v-hope/#comments Wed, 05 May 2010 15:11:32 +0000 HLG http://www.hundleylaw.com/?p=161 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 [...]]]> 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.”

]]> http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/05/recovery-for-slip-and-fall-injuries-is-further-muddied-hope-v-hope/feed/ 0