February 8, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 39

Advertisement

February 07, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 06, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

House Bill Seeks to Amend Illinois' Premises Liability Act

Illinois Representative Jack D. Franks (D - McHenry County) has introduced a Bill (HB 1441) that would amend the Illinois Premises Liability Act to eliminate a court's ability to decide that a landowner does not owe a duty to protect those coming on his/her premises against conditions that are open and obvious.

The Illinois Premises Liability Act states (in part) that "The duty owed to such entrants is that of reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises or acts done or omitted on them." A longstanding exception to this duty under Illinois common law (and in other jurisdictions nationwide) is that "a party who owns or controls land is not required to foresee and protect against an injury if the potentially dangerous condition is open and obvious." Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 207 Ill. 2nd 33, 44 (2003). This is known as the "open and obvious rule."

It is also well-established case law that the question of whether or not a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2nd 404, 411 (1991).

There are exceptions to the "open and obvious rule," however, Representative Franks' Bill seeks to limit the application of the rule by excluding it as something a court can consider it determining whether or not a landowner owes an entrant a duty by adding the following language to the Premises Liability Act:

"Whether a condition is open and obvious may be considered by the trier of fact only in assessing the degree of comparative fault, if any, under Section 2-116 if the Code if Civil Procedure and shall not be considered with respect to any other issues of law or fact, including duty." (Emphasis added).

The proposed amendment would expose landowners to additional liability for open and obvious conditions, and make cases with these circumstances more difficult to defend.

© 2023 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.CNational Law Review, Volume V, Number 48
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Gary Pinter, Civil Tort Litigation, Attorney, Heyl Royster, law firm
Partner

Gary joined the firm in 2007, became a partner in 2015, and practices in a variety of areas of civil tort litigation including the defense of matters involving product liability, premises liability, trucking and transportation claims and professional liability. Gary's expertise in the defense of asbestos-related product and premises claims has made him a valuable member of many of the firm's client defense teams.  Gary serves as the primary point of contact for several asbestos clients and takes the lead in the coordination of responses and presenting...

618-656-4646
Gary Nelson, Insurance Coverage Attorney, Heyl Royster, Law firm
Shareholder

Gary's litigation experience includes defending cases involving liability insurance coverage cases for CGL, umbrella/excess, automobile, home, life, health and disability policies, as well as civil litigation in trial and ADR settings with a special focus on trucking and common carrier disputes, construction litigation, and architect/engineer professional liability claims. He has represented more than 100 insurers and self-insureds in more than 1,000 cases in his career. Gary is a member of the firm's Executive Committee and he served as the firm's managing partner...

309-676-0400
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement