Trial ordered in elderly woman's trip-and-fall case on public sidewalk

April 13, 2014 (Press-News.org) Trial ordered in elderly woman's trip-and-fall case on public sidewalk

In Bruns v. City of Centralia, the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois reversed a circuit court's ruling summarily denying an elderly woman's personal injury claim against the City of Centralia, Illinois. The plaintiff, 80 years old at the time, tripped and fell on a public sidewalk while on her way to an appointment at an eye clinic. The appellate court remanded the case for trial, holding that it was up to a jury to decide whether the city breached a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff. The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

Background

The incident occurred in 2012. As the plaintiff approached the clinic, she tripped over a raised section of sidewalk. The roots of a large nearby tree had caused the sidewalk to crack and buckle over the years, forming an uneven pathway. The cracked section of the sidewalk was raised over neighboring sections by three inches. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's attention was focused on the clinic steps and entrance, not the sidewalk.

Under Illinois law, landowners are generally not liable for physical harm to persons entering upon their property that are caused by a dangerous condition that is open and obvious to them. In this case it was undisputed that the crack in the sidewalk was open and obvious as a matter of law.

Illinois courts have recognized a distraction exception to the open and obvious danger rule. The distraction exception applies when it is foreseeable that a plaintiff's attention would be diverted from the open and obvious condition based on circumstances requiring a plaintiff to place his or her focus elsewhere.

The circuit court of Marion County summarily ruled in the city's favor, finding that the city owed no duty to the plaintiff because the sidewalk defect was open and obvious. The circuit court also ruled that the distraction exception could not be applied unless the city created, contributed to, or was otherwise responsible for the distraction.

The appellate court's decision

The appellate court reversed, stating that a court's review of the distraction exception must focus on the foreseeability of the injury, not the creation of the distraction. The appellate court said it was "certainly reasonable" to foresee that an elderly eye clinic patient may be focusing ahead on the pathway near to the door and steps of the clinic, rather than on the path immediately underfoot, or the patient may be looking up while walking, checking to see how much farther it is before reaching the steps to the clinic.

The appellate court also stated that the city was previously made aware of the danger. At least one other person had tripped at the location. The clinic had even offered to remove the tree at its own expense, but the city refused due to the tree's historic significance. The city had other options to mitigate the danger, such as replacing the cracked sidewalk or re-routing the sidewalk around the tree. Thus, said the appellate court, the burden on the city to remedy a known peril was not significant. The question as to whether the city had a breached a duty of care to the plaintiff should have been left for the jury to decide, the court said.

Individuals who have sustained injuries as a result of the negligent acts or other wrongful conduct of another are urged to seek the advice of an experienced personal injury attorney in order to protect their legal rights.

Article provided by Jamie M. Trapp & Associates
Visit us at www.trapplaw.com