The Illinois high court refines the distraction exception to the open-and-obvious rule

Torts 101: A premises owner has a duty to keep the place up so as not to put an invitee in harm's way. Exception: if a danger is open and obvious, the invitee can see it, and thus the owner has a defense if the invitee, say, trips over a big crack in the sidewalk. Exception to the exception: "[I]f a plaintiff is distracted by something that prevents her from seeing where she is going, she is able to recover when she trips over an open and obvious hazard," as Judge Daniel T. Gillespie and Greg Connor put it in their article in the most recent issue of Trial Briefs. (Trial Briefs is the newsletter of the ISBA's Civil Practice & Procedure Section.)

But what is a distraction? The Illinois Supreme Court addressed that question a few weeks ago in Bruns v. City of Centralia. They ruled that the distraction exception was not available to a plaintiff who didn't see a crack in the sidewalk because she was looking at the steps and door of the building she was about to enter. Find out more and read the authors' analysis.

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Mark S. Mathewson

Login to post comments