Plaintiff fails to prove a product liability claim because she can’t prove what tube was the result of her injury.

Issues of why the plaintiff was standing up and not getting out of the way on a tubing hill was not discussed in the appellate decision.

Buckel v. Tube Pro Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 150427-U; 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 638

State: Illinois, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division

Plaintiff: Susan Buckel

Defendant: Tube Pro Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence (based on a product liability claim)

Defendant Defenses: No proof the allegedly defective product was theirs

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2016

The defendant is a snow tubing operation at a city park in Illinois. The plaintiff was tubing when something sticking out of the bottom of the tube slowed her down and stopped her. While stopped on the hill the plaintiff was struck by another tuber and was injured.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment saying the plaintiff could not prove her case because she could not identify what tube, let alone whose tube, (manufactured by whom), was the defective tube. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

There was also exculpatory language on the back of the lift ticket the plaintiff purchased. It was raised by the defendant and discussed in one paragraph in the decision, but was not used by the court to reach its conclusion.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court started its decision by looking at the testimony from the plaintiff used to describe the tube she was riding. Her testimony of the color of the tube did not match the receipts from the tubing hill that showed the tubes that were purchased from the defendant. The tubes purchased from the defendant was also purchased ten years prior to the accident so very few if any of them were still in operation with the tubing hill.

Defendant attached the deposition of plaintiff, who testified that the colors of the tubes at Villa Olivia on the date of her accident were “red, green, and blue.” Defendant also relied on the deposition of plaintiff to establish that the snow tube she used at the time of her accident was red. Plaintiff testified, “I believe it was red.”

Defendant also attached the deposition transcript of William Pawson, who testified that the snow tubes purchased by Villa Olivia from defendant were red and blue. William Pawson testified that he believed “those [were] the only two colors that we sold them.” Defendant also relied on William Pawson’s testimony that Villa Olivia purchased Tough Tube snow tubes that were “a mix of red, blue, maybe some green and plum, I would imagine, but red and blue for sure.” Defendant argued that the evidence showed that defendant was just one of the possible manufacturers which may have sold the red snow tube in question.

The defendants also introduced evidence showing that at the time tubes were purchased from the defendant, tubes were also purchased from another tube manufacturer.

The tubes sold by the defendant also had a plastic bottom, and the plaintiff testified her inner tube had a regular rubber bottom.

The court then looked at how a product liability claim based on negligence needed to be proven under Illinois’s law.

“A product liability claim [based] in negligence is concerned with both defendant’s fault and the condition of the product.” To succeed in a products liability claim based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3), an injury that was proximately caused by that breach, and (4) damages. “‘A manufacturer has a nondelegable duty to produce a product that is reasonably safe for all intended uses.'” “A plaintiff must show that the manufacturer knew or should have known of the risk posed by the design at the time of the manufacture to establish that the manufacturer acted unreasonably based on the foreseeability of harm.” Moreover, in a products liability action asserting a claim based in negligence, “[t]he plaintiff must show that the manufacturer breached his duty to design something safer for the user because the quality of the product in question was insufficient.”

However, the most important issue is the plaintiff must identify the manufacturer of the defective product and establish a relationship between the injury and the product. The identification of the manufacturer must be more than speculation.

Most importantly, “the plaintiff must identify the manufacturer of the product and establish a causal relationship between the injury and the product.” While the plaintiff may prove these elements by direct or circumstantial evidence, “liability cannot be based on mere speculation, guess, or conjecture.”

Because the tube described by the plaintiff was different from what was sold by the manufacturer and because the plaintiff did not have the actual tube, the appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court.

She testified that a photograph of a snow tube used by her son showed a red-colored tube, but did not indicate the manufacturer’s name on it. Without the snow tube itself or any examination of it, plaintiff cannot establish or raise a genuine issue of material fact that defendant was the manufacturer. Without the snow tube itself or any photographs of it, or an examination of the snow tube to determine if the accident was a result of a preexisting defect, plaintiff cannot prove a prima facie products liability case against the defendant.

So Now What?

Simple but very lengthy decision because the court bent over backwards to prove why it could not rule for the plaintiff. Yet this decision is instructive because you have to have more than an injury to ask for money in a lawsuit or claim.

There must be a relationship with what caused you the injury, and the person you are claiming caused the injury and a relationship with you. Lacking one of those it does not matter if you signed a release or assumed the risk because you can’t prove negligence.

clip_image002What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law           Rec-law@recreation-law.com     James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Product Liability, Tubing Hill, Snow Tubing, Defective Product, Negligence, Negligent Product,

 

Advertisements

Buckel v. Tube Pro Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 150427-U; 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 638

Buckel v. Tube Pro Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 150427-U; 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 638

Susan Buckel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tube Pro Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-15-0427

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION

2016 IL App (1st) 150427-U; 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 638

March 31, 2016, Decided

NOTICE: THIS ORDER WAS FILED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 23 AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY ANY PARTY EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED UNDER RULE 23(e)(1).

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 13 L 116. The Honorable Kathy M. Flanagan, Judge, presiding.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

JUDGES: JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Lampkin concurred in the judgment.

OPINION BY: GORDON

OPINION

JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Lampkin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

[*P1] Held: Where plaintiff did not and cannot produce the allegedly defective snow tube involved in her snow tubing accident or produce any photographs of the snow tube itself, and where the subject snow tube was never retrieved or examined for defects, plaintiff cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact that defendant was the manufacturer and thus the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant.

[*P2] Plaintiff Susan Buckel brought this products liability action based on a negligence theory against defendant Tube Pro Inc., seeking damages for injuries she sustained during a snow tubing accident at the Villa Olivia ski facility in Bartlett, Illinois, on January 17, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured as a result of a defective snow tube manufactured by defendant. Defendant moved [**2] for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff provided insufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the identity of the manufacturer of the snow tube in question. Defendant further argued that, without the claimed defective snow tube, plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements to establish a prima facie case of products liability against defendant. The trial court granted defendant’s motion, and plaintiff now appeals.

[*P3] For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant.

[*P4] BACKGROUND

[*P5] I. Pleadings

[*P6] A. Complaint

[*P7] On January 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants: (1) Daniel Corrado; Greater Chicago Distribution Corporation, individually and doing business as Villa Olivia; and Villa Olivia1; (2) Tube Pro; (3) “Unknown Snow Tube Manufacturer”; and (4) “Unknown Owners and Non-Record Claimants.”

1 On July 24, 2013, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to voluntary dismiss without prejudice, Daniel Corrado, Greater Chicago Distribution Corporation, individually and doing business as Villa Olivia. The record does not contain a copy of plaintiff’s motion, but includes the trial court’s order [**3] granting it.

[*P8] In her complaint, plaintiff made the following allegations:

[*P9] Plaintiff alleged that she was at Villa Olivia on January 17, 2011, and purchased a ticket to snow tube on the premises of Villa Olivia. Villa Olivia provided her with a snow tube to use, which was manufactured by defendant. As she descended down the hill using the snow tube provided by Villa Olivia, a sharp object stuck out of the tube, dug into the ground, and caused the snow tube to stop on the hill. While her snow tube was stopped on the hill, she was struck by another snow tube from behind and was injured. Plaintiff alleged her snow tube was defective.

[*P10] Only count II of plaintiff’s complaint, which is entitled “Negligence,” is directed at defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the snow tube she used at Villa Olivia was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, and sold by defendant. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant negligently designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold the snow tube equipment without appropriate safeguarding and an adequate warning label. Plaintiff also contended that defendant failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of the snow tube, to design and manufacture the snow tube [**4] safely, or to properly inform or instruct the purchaser of the snow tube’s use. Plaintiff alleged that defendant negligently tested and inspected or failed to test, inspect, and heed the test results of the subject snow tube involved in her accident. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of defendant’s “careless and negligent acts and omissions,” she “was severely and permanently injured both internally and externally.”

[*P11] B. Answer

[*P12] On April 18, 2013, defendant filed its “Answer and Affirmative Defense” to plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant admitted that it manufactured snow tubes, including certain snow tubes used at Villa Olivia and that, on or before January 17, 2011, it engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, and selling snow tubes. Defendant answered that it had no knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of plaintiff’s statement that the snow tube she used at Villa Olivia was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, or sold by defendant. Defendant denied it had negligently designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold snow tube equipment without appropriate safeguarding and an adequate warning label. Defendant also denied plaintiff’s allegation [**5] that it failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of the snow tube, to design and manufacture the snow tube safely, or to properly inform or instruct the purchaser of the snow tube’s use. Defendant also denied that it negligently tested and inspected or failed to test, inspect, and heed the test results of the subject snow tube involved in plaintiff’s accident.

[*P13] Defendant also asserted the affirmative defense of comparative negligence, claiming plaintiff was negligent in failing to observe and avoid the snow tube which allegedly struck her and was negligent in failing to move from the middle of the hill, when she knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, that other snow tubes were descending down the hill. Defendant also claimed plaintiff was negligent in failing to properly inspect the subject snow tube prior to riding in it and was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout. Defendant also alleged plaintiff was inattentive and unobservant to surrounding conditions and was the sole proximate cause of her alleged injuries and damages.

[*P14] C. Plaintiff’s Reply

[*P15] In response to defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence, plaintiff denied she was negligent [**6] in failing to observe and avoid the snow tube which allegedly struck her or negligent in failing to move from the middle of the snow tube hill. Plaintiff also denied that she was negligent in failing to properly inspect the subject snow tube prior to riding it or that she was negligent in keeping a proper lookout. Plaintiff denied she was inattentive or unobservant to surrounding circumstances.

[*P16] D. Amended Complaint and Answer

[*P17] On July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against defendant, naming as additional defendants “Village of Bartlett and the Bartlett Park District.”2 The allegations of count II, which were directed at defendant, remained substantially the same.

2 On October 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss, without prejudice, the Village of Bartlett, which the trial court granted on November 1, 2013. 735 ILCS 5/2-1009 (West 2010). Additionally, on November 1, 2013, the trial court granted defendant Bartlett Park District’s section 2-619(a)(5) motion to dismiss count V of plaintiff’s amended complaint, without prejudice. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 2010). Tube Pro is the only remaining defendant on appeal.

[*P18] On July 12, 2013, defendant filed its “Answer and Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,” [**7] which asserted the same affirmative defenses and denied the same allegations.

[*P19] On March 25, 2014, defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses, which included the defense of comparative negligence pled in its prior answer plus additional affirmative defenses. Defendant raised the additional affirmative defense of joint and several liability and further contended that the exculpatory clause included on the snow tubing ticket plaintiff purchased from Villa Olivia barred plaintiff’s cause of action against defendant. Defendant also raised as an affirmative defense that the negligent act of the snow tube rider who struck plaintiff was an intervening or superseding cause of her accident, which barred recovery against defendant. The trial court granted the motion on March 25, 2014.

[*P20] On April 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file answers to defendant’s amended affirmative defenses to plaintiff’s amended complaint.3

3 There is no order in the record indicating whether the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file answers to defendant’s amended affirmative defenses to plaintiff’s amended complaint.

[*P21] While plaintiff admitted that [**8] she paid for a ticket to engage in snow tubing at Villa Olivia, she denied defendant’s allegation that, by purchasing the snow tubing ticket, she agreed to the terms and conditions of the exculpatory clause contained on the ticket. Plaintiff denied the allegation that the parties to the exculpatory clause intended that the terms and conditions of the exculpatory clause apply to defendant. Plaintiff further denied that defendant was a thirdparty beneficiary of the exculpatory clause and that the exculpatory clause included on the snow tubing ticket plaintiff purchased from Villa Olivia barred plaintiff’s cause against defendant.

[*P22] As to defendant’s additional affirmative defense of joint and several liability, plaintiff denied the allegation that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident was the negligent acts or omissions, or intentional, reckless, willful, and wanton acts or omissions, of other persons or entities not presently parties to the lawsuit, including, but not limited to, Bartlett Park District and the snow tube rider who struck her. Plaintiff further denied defendant’s allegation that, pursuant to section 2-1117 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, any fault, which it specifically denied, was less than 25% of the [**9] total fault. 735 ILCS 5/2-1117 (West 2010).

[*P23] Plaintiff denied defendant’s affirmative defense that the negligent act or omission of the snow tube rider who struck her was an intervening or superseding cause of her accident, which barred recovery against defendant. Plaintiff also denied defendant’s allegation that the intervening or superseding negligent acts or omissions of the snow tube rider who struck her barred her recovery against defendant.

[*P24] On May 23, 2013, defendant filed answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Defendant named its president and co-founder, William Pawson, and its cofounder, Annie Pawson, as witnesses who would testify to the design, manufacture, and sale of snow tubes by defendant. Defendant also stated that William Pawson and Annie Pawson would testify that defendant manufactures snow tubes for sale and does not inspect or maintain products subsequent to sale to a customer.

[*P25] Plaintiff filed answers to defendant’s interrogatories.4 Plaintiff named certain of defendant’s employees as witnesses who would testify regarding their knowledge of the occurrence alleged in her complaint, including their observations and the policies of defendant. The witnesses included William Pawson, Annie [**10] Pawson, Victor Clark, Rick Root, Jennifer Huras, and Abby Pawson.5

4 Exhibit “A” to defendant’s motion for authorization regarding mental health records, subpoenas, and testimony contains plaintiff’s answers to defendant’s interrogatories, but it does not provide a date of filing.

5 The record does not contain a copy of the depositions of Victor Clark, Rick Root, Jennifer Huras, and Abby Pawson.

[*P26] On December 10, 2013, the trial court ordered party depositions to be completed by January 28, 2014. The depositions of William Pawson6 and Annie Pawson7 were discovery depositions.

6 Plaintiff attached an excerpt of William Pawson’s deposition in her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and defendant attached the entire transcript of William Pawson’s deposition in its motion for summary judgment.

7 Plaintiff attached the entire transcript of Annie Pawson’s deposition as Exhibit “D” to her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

[*P27] II. Motion for Summary Judgment

[*P28] A. Defendant’s Motion

[*P29] On September 15, 2014, defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff provided insufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the identity of the manufacturer [**11] of the snow tube in question. In its motion, defendant claimed that, because the snow tube was never inspected or retained after the accident, plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements to establish a prima facie case of product liability against defendant.

[*P30] In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant relied on invoices indicating that Villa Olivia purchased snow tubes from two different companies: (1) defendant; and (2) Tough Tube Manufacturing Inc. (Tough Tube). An invoice showed that in September 2000, Villa Olivia purchased 100 snow tubes from Tough Tube. Another invoice showed that in December 2012, Villa Olivia purchased 14 refurbished snow tube covers from defendant. The invoices also showed that in 2008, Villa Olivia purchased 5 red snow tubes, 1 navy blue snow tube, and 10 refurbished snow tube covers from defendant. The invoices showed that in 2009, Villa Olivia purchased 10 royal blue snow tubes and 36 refurbished covers from defendant.

[*P31] Defendant attached the deposition of plaintiff, who testified that the colors of the tubes at Villa Olivia on the date of her accident were “red, green, and blue.” Defendant also relied on the deposition of plaintiff to [**12] establish that the snow tube she used at the time of her accident was red. Plaintiff testified, “I believe it was red.”

[*P32] Defendant also attached the deposition transcript of William Pawson, who testified that the snow tubes purchased by Villa Olivia from defendant were red and blue. William Pawson testified that he believed “those [were] the only two colors that we sold them.” Defendant also relied on William Pawson’s testimony that Villa Olivia purchased Tough Tube snow tubes that were “a mix of red, blue, maybe some green and plum, I would imagine, but red and blue for sure.” Defendant argued that the evidence showed that defendant was just one of the possible manufacturers which may have sold the red snow tube in question.

[*P33] William Pawson also testified that defendant never experienced any reports that its snow tubes were defective. William Pawson testified that he was not sure “how” or “why” a protruding object could come out of plaintiff’s snow tube. He testified that: “There is just the inner tube. It’s the only accessory item inside the actual tube cover. And the valve is welded to the tube itself. So I don’t understand. I’m not sure how that could occur.”

[*P34] Defendant further relied [**13] on plaintiff’s deposition that the snow tube involved in her accident did not have a plastic bottom. Plaintiff testified that the type of material she observed on the bottom of her snow tube “[was] not plastic,” but a normal inner tube material, which she assumed was rubber. Defendant also referenced William Pawson’s testimony to show that the bottom of defendant’s snow tubes were plastic. He testified that one of defendant’s component parts for its snow tubes is a “plastic bottom.”

[*P35] Defendant cited plaintiff’s deposition to show that she could not say for certain who the manufacturer of the snow tube was. Plaintiff testified that “[she] did not look at the markings on the tube” she used at the time of her accident and, therefore, was uncertain as to its manufacturer. Plaintiff testified, while looking at photographs that showed different snow tubes in use at Villa Olivia “before her accident,” she could not say for certain that they showed the name of defendant. Plaintiff testified:

“I can’t tell you the exact letters; but I can tell you how when you blow it up that it looks like two words, okay. And I can kind of make out certain letters; but could I clearly say it was a T or a P or [**14] a B or what, no.”

Plaintiff also testified she did not take any photographs of the exact snow tube involved in her accident.

[*P36] In sum, defendant argued that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because the snow tube involved in plaintiff’s accident was no longer available and, therefore, plaintiff could not identify the manufacturer of the snow tube nor support a reasonable inference that defendant manufactured the snow tube she used at the time of her tubing accident. In addition, defendant argued plaintiff could not prove a prima facie case without the allegedly defective snow tube.

[*P37] B. Plaintiff’s Response

[*P38] On December 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In her response, plaintiff argued both: (1) that defendant was the manufacturer of the plaintiff’s defective snow tube; and (2) that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether defendant’s defective snow tube was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

[*P39] Plaintiff alleged that her snow tube was defective. Attaching excerpts of her deposition transcript, plaintiff described the defect as follows:

“DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: When is the first occasion you had to look [**15] at the tube after the accident?”

PLAINTIFF: The minute I came to a stop.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: While you were on the hill?

PLAINTIFF: While I’m on the hill.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: What did you see?

PLAINTIFF: I wanted to know why I was stuck. So I lifted up the tube, and I could see a 5-inch slash and this hard spiky thing sticking out of the tube *** It was a solid, a sharp object.”

Plaintiff further described the defect as follows:

“DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: Before the operator came up to you and upon you, did you look at the tube?

PLAINTIFF: Yes.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: And this–whatever you observed on the bottom of the tube, was it the material of the bottom of the tube?

PLAINTIFF: It looked like the insides of the tube.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: Well, the tube you told me was kind of like, in your mind at least, a standard rubber inner tube, correct?

PLAINTIFF: Well, I kind of remember–it could have been–I don’t recall the exact material of the tube, the outside of the tube; but the frozen object looked like it was coming out of the tube.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: This frozen object, was it part of the material of the tube or some foreign object?

PLAINTIFF: I thought maybe it was a metal piece or something, [**16] and it wasn’t. It was the innards of the tube, and I couldn’t even move it with my glove. It was shaped as if it was, like, a knifish form coming out.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: And how long was this shape?

PLAINTIFF: I know that the slash in the tube was about that big (indicating), so 5 inches, and then this item was coming out of it.”

[*P40] Plaintiff also attached the deposition transcript of Villa Olivia employee, Michael Conrardy, who worked on the snow tube hill for multiple winter seasons. Conrardy testified that during the 2010-2011 winter season, he found one snow tube in their “tube shack” that had a crack in it. Conrardy testified:

“DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: Did you ever become aware of cracking, cracks in the bottom of any snow tubes?

CONRARDY: Yeah, that was one thing that I noticed when I was working. I was bringing out the tubes out of the tube shack in the morning and there was quite a decent crack in the bottom.”

Conrardy further described the snow tube as follows:

“PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: In as much detail as you can, can you describe to me first where the slit was?

CONRARDY: It was like the side. I don’t remember if it was the side near to where the rope connected or not, but it was just [**17] on the general like circumference of it, you know, and it was like a rounded slit that went–it was about eight inches long, and it wasn’t protruding in. It was more protruding out.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

CONRARDY: So if someone went down the hill, as a safety issue, if it was protruding out and they caught an edge they could just flip ***.”

[*P41] Plaintiff highlighted Conrardy’s testimony where he stated that “It would have caught snow and that’s what I’m saying. It wouldn’t protrude into the tube where it could hurt the person, like their bottom. It would literally protrude down and out.” Conrardy further stated that the slit “was on the bottom plastic part like right at the edge.” Conrardy recalled the tube with the slit “was just one of the ordinary tubes.”

[*P42] Plaintiff also attached the deposition transcript of Edward Jorens, Villa Olivia superintendant of golf and skiing, who was involved in the initial procurement and purchase of snow tubes for the facility. Jorens testified that “once in a while there’s cracks” in the plastic bottoms of the snow tubes. Jorens also testified that cracks “bigger than 2 or 3 inches or so” on the bottom of the snow tubes would “[t]o a certain degree” affect [**18] the speed of the tube going down the hill. Jorens also testified that he discussed the cracking at the bottom of the tubes with defendant and that “Annie [Pawson] [was] usually the person I talked to from Tube Pro.”

[*P43] In her response, plaintiff attached the deposition of Annie Pawson, who testified that defendant receives yearly complaints “in general” from customers about the bottom of their snow tubes being cracked. Annie Pawson testified that she has personally seen a bottom of a defendant snow tube being cracked and described it “as a slit, like a little slit, a scoring, just a little slit.” Annie Pawson also testified, “I don’t recall specifically my customer mentioning cracks, per se. I just recall them requesting that we refurbish some of their old stock that they had purchased in the past.”

[*P44] Plaintiff further claimed in her response that it was highly unlikely that Tough Tubes were being used at Villa Olivia at the time of her accident. In support of this claim, plaintiff attached testimony by Jorens, who testified that “an average of four or five” snow tubes were stolen per year. Jorens further testified:

“DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: With regard to the 100 tubes purchased from Tough [**19] Tube in September 2000, by the time you retired in December of 2010, do you know how many of those tubes were still left at Villa Olivia?

JORENS: Not very many. I’m sure of that.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: Why do you say that?

JORENS: Well, in other words, every year we’d send them back to get refurbished. Probably anywhere from I’m guessing 10, 10 of the tubes.”

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: Did you send tubes to be refurbished to any company other than Tube Pro?

JORENS: No.”

[*P45] Plaintiff also relied on Jorens’s testimony to show that more defendant snow tubes were being used at Villa Olivia at the time of her accident than Tough Tube snow tubes. Jorens testified that, from 2000 to when he retired in 2010, Villa Olivia continued to purchase snow tubes from defendant. Jorens did not believe Villa Olivia purchased snow tubes from any other company from 2000 to 2010. Plaintiff also attached invoices showing that, from 2002 to 2009, Villa Olivia purchased 60 refurbished snow tube covers from defendant. The invoices also show that Villa Olivia purchased “5 red snow tubes,” “1 double rider snow tube,” “10 royal blue snow tubes,” and 27 inner tubes from defendant in the same period. Plaintiff also relied on [**20] Annie Pawson’s testimony and a “Customer Sales Ordering Info Sheet” to show that, in November 2002, defendant purchased 30 defendant snow tubes with Pepsi logos on them. Pawson testified as follows:

“PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. And then the number of tubes, 30 and it has Pepsi. Do you know what the word next to Pepsi–is that tubes?

ANNIE PAWSON: Tubes, yes sir.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Is that a purchase by Villa Olivia, 30 new Pepsi tubes?

ANNIE PAWSON: Yes, it is.”

[*P46] Plaintiff also argued in her reply that “she was not an expert on materials or plastics” and therefore, her testimony about how her tube did not have a plastic bottom was immaterial in determining the identity of the manufacturer. Plaintiff relies on Conrardy’s testimony to show that he, too, was uncertain as to what the material of the tube bottoms were. Plaintiff points out that Conrardy testified that he believed the bottom of the tube was made of rubber, but then said it could be made of plastic after defendant counsel “raised the possibility of the bottom being plastic.” Conrardy testified:

“DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY: And is it possible that the bottom may have been plastic as opposed to rubber, if you know?

CONRARDY: Actually, [**21] yeah, that’s a good point. I could see it being plastic because it just seemed more hard and thicker than the inside, so that actually makes sense because the inside was more cushiony than the bottom.”

[*P47] Plaintiff also attached an excerpt of William Pawson’s deposition transcript where he described Tough Tube and defendant as both having plastic bottoms. Pawson testified that they both had the “same sewing design premise whereby you have a sewn canvas top that’s pleated into the plastic bottom with the seatbelt based trim.”

[*P48] Finally, in her response, plaintiff claimed that she could still prove a prima facie case without the defective snow tube because the defect at issue was known to defendant.

[*P49] C. Trial Court’s Ruling

[*P50] On January 21, 2015, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In its five-page memorandum opinion, the trial court held that defendant was entitled to summary judgment because “[p]laintiff [could not] establish, or even raise a question of fact that, defendant was the manufacturer of the subject snow tube.” The trial court noted that the “subject snow tube [was] no longer in existence” and, therefore, plaintiff could not “meaningfully identify the specific [**22] snow tube” that “she rode on the day of the accident.” The trial court stated that: “[n]either the Plaintiff nor any other evidence in the record can identify anything about the subject snow tube which distinguishes it from others in such a way that a reasonable inference can be made that defendant was the manufacturer of it.” The trial court found:

“[T]he evidence does not show that the specific defective condition complained of-that the tube bottom contained a 4 to 5 inch hard and sharp protrusion poking through a 5 inch slash which caused the tube to completely stop while going down the hill was known to be a common defect in a Tube Pro snow tube.”

The trial court reasoned: “The circumstantial evidence here may raise a possibility that defendant was the manufacturer of the snow tube, but it does not justify an inference of a probability that it was the manufacturer.” (Emphasis in original.) Based upon the foregoing, the trial court found that defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

[*P51] On February 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.

[*P52] ANALYSIS

[*P53] In this direct appeal, plaintiff appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff argues [**23] that the evidence demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact about whether defendant was the manufacturer of the snow tube that caused her injuries. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

[*P54] I. Standard of Review

[*P55] Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits and exhibits, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2014). When determining if the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the court construes the pleadings and evidentiary material in the record strictly against the movant. Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 179, 186, 766 N.E.2d 1118, 262 Ill. Dec. 815 (2002). We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102, 607 N.E.2d 1204, 180 Ill. Dec. 691 (1992). De novo consideration means the reviewing court performs the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564, 578, 948 N.E.2d 132, 350 Ill. Dec. 63 (2011).

[*P56] “Summary judgment is a drastic measure and should only be granted if the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt.” Outboard Marine Corp., 154 Ill. 2d at 102. “Mere speculation, conjecture, or guess is insufficient to withstand summary judgment.” Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc., 309 Ill. App. 3d 313, 328, 722 N.E.2d 227, 242 Ill. Dec. 738 (1999). The party [**24] moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of proof. Nedzvekas v. Fung, 374 Ill. App. 3d 618, 624, 872 N.E.2d 431, 313 Ill. Dec. 448 (2007). The movant may meet its burden of proof either “by affirmatively showing that some element of the case must be resolved in its favor” or by “‘establishing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.'” Nedzvekas, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 624 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). To prevent the entry of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present a bona fide factual issue and not merely general conclusions of law. Caponi v. Larry’s 66, 236 Ill. App. 3d 660, 670, 601 N.E.2d 1347, 176 Ill. Dec. 649 (1992)). Therefore, while the party opposing the motion is not required to prove her case at the summary judgment stage, she must provide some factual basis to support the elements of her cause of action. Illinois State Bar Ass’n Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mondo, 392 Ill. App. 3d 1032, 1036, 911 N.E.2d 1144, 331 Ill. Dec. 914 (2009); Ralston v. Casanova, 129 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 1059, 473 N.E.2d 444, 85 Ill. Dec. 76 (1984). On a motion for summary judgment, the court cannot consider any evidence that would be inadmissible at trial. Brown, Udell & Pomerantz, Ltd. v. Ryan, 369 Ill. App. 3d 821, 824, 861 N.E.2d 258, 308 Ill. Dec. 193 (2006). Thus, the party opposing summary judgment must produce some competent, admissible evidence which, if proved, would warrant entry of judgment in her favor. Brown, Udell & Pomerantz, 369 Ill.App.3d at 824. Summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmoving party cannot establish an element of her claim. Willett v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 366 Ill. App. 3d 360, 368, 851 N.E.2d 626, 303 Ill. Dec. 439 (2006).

[*P57] We may affirm on any basis appearing in the record, whether or not the trial court relied on that basis, and even if the trial court’s reasoning was incorrect. Ray Dancer, Inc. v. DMC Corp., 230 Ill. App. 3d 40, 50, 594 N.E.2d 1344, 171 Ill. Dec. 824 (1992).

[*P58] II. Plaintiff’s [**25] Claim Against Defendant

[*P59] Plaintiff sued defendant under a products liability claim based on a theory of negligence. Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78, 89, 828 N.E.2d 1128, 293 Ill. Dec. 630 (2005) (discussing the differences between a products liability case based on a negligence theory and a strict products liability case). Plaintiff alleged that defendant committed one or more of the following careless and negligent acts or omissions: (1) designed, manufactured, distributed and sold the snow tube equipment without appropriate safeguarding and an adequate warning label; (2) failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of the snow tube; (3) failed to design and manufacture the snow tube safely; (4) failed to properly inform or instruct the purchaser of the snow tube’s use; and (5) negligently designed, manufactured, tested, inspected (or failed to test and inspect), and heeded the test results of the subject snow tube involved in her accident.

[*P60] “A product liability claim [based] in negligence is concerned with both defendant’s fault and the condition of the product.” Sobczak v. General Motors Corp., 373 Ill. App. 3d 910, 923, 871 N.E.2d 82, 312 Ill. Dec. 682 (2007) (citing Coney v. J.L.G. Industries, Inc., 97 Ill. 2d 104, 117, 454 N.E.2d 197, 73 Ill. Dec. 337 (1983)). To succeed in a products liability claim based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3), an injury that was proximately caused [**26] by that breach, and (4) damages. Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096, ¶ 82, 955 N.E.2d 1138, 353 Ill. Dec. 327 (citing Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 556, 877 N.E.2d 1064, 315 Ill. Dec. 735 (2007)). “‘A manufacturer has a nondelegable duty to produce a product that is reasonably safe for all intended uses.'” Sobczak , 373 Ill. App. 3d at 923 (quoting Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 198 Ill. 2d 420, 433, 764 N.E.2d 35, 261 Ill. Dec. 744 (2002)). “A plaintiff must show that the manufacturer knew or should have known of the risk posed by the design at the time of the manufacture to establish that the manufacturer acted unreasonably based on the foreseeability of harm.” Sobczak v. General Motors Corp., 373 Ill. App. 3d at 923 (citing Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247, 255, 864 N.E.2d 249, 309 Ill. Dec. 383 (2007)). Moreover, in a products liability action asserting a claim based in negligence, “[t]he plaintiff must show that the manufacturer breached his duty to design something safer for the user because the quality of the product in question was insufficient.” Blue, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 463 (citing Rotzoll v. Overhead Door Corp., 289 Ill. App. 3d 410, 419, 681 N.E.2d 156, 224 Ill. Dec. 174 (1997)).

[*P61] Most importantly, “the plaintiff must identify the manufacturer of the product and establish a causal relationship between the injury and the product.” Zimmer v. Celotex Corp., 192 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 1091, 549 N.E.2d 881, 140 Ill. Dec. 230 (1989) (citing Schmidt v. Archer Iron Works, Inc., 44 Ill. 2d 401, 405-06, 256 N.E.2d 6 (1970), cert. denied 398 U.S. 959, 90 S. Ct. 2173, 26 L. Ed. 2d 544). While the plaintiff may prove these elements by direct or circumstantial evidence, “liability cannot be based on mere speculation, guess, or conjecture.” Zimmer, 192 Ill. App. 3d at 1091. Therefore, when circumstantial evidence is relied on, the circumstances must justify an inference of probability as distinguished from mere possibility.” (Emphasis added.) Naden v. Celotex Corp., 190 Ill. App. 3d 410, 415, 546 N.E.2d 766, 137 Ill. Dec. 821 (1989); Mateika v. LaSalle Thermogas Co., 94 Ill. App. 3d 506, 508, 418 N.E.2d 503, 49 Ill. Dec. 649 (1981); Zimmer, 192 Ill. App. 3d at 1091.

[*P62] III. Parties’ Arguments

[*P63] A. [**27] Plaintiff’s Arguments

[*P64] On appeal, plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because she raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether defendant was the manufacturer of the snow tube. Plaintiff argues that, since the court is to consider the evidence strictly against defendant and liberally in favor of her, summary judgment was not a proper disposition here. Plaintiff argues that the record, including invoices and witness testimony, shows that fair minded persons could draw different conclusions about whether defendant was the manufacturer.

[*P65] Specifically, plaintiff argues that according to the testimony of Jorens, Villa Olivia’s superintendent of golf and skiing, four to five snow tubes were stolen each year between 2000 to 2011 and that the majority of defendant snow tubes purchased by Villa Olivia occurred in 2008 and 2009. According to plaintiff, this figure equates to potentially 44 to 55 Tough Tubes being stolen prior to plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff also relies on invoices that show Villa Olivia purchased 60 refurbished snow tube covers from defendant. Plaintiff argues that, given the refurbishment of these 60 snow tubes [**28] and the approximately 44 to 55 Tough Tubes stolen each year between 2000 to 2011, it was highly unlikely that Tough Tubes were still being used at Villa Olivia at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff also relies on the testimony of Jorens to show that more defendant snow tubes than Tough Tube snow tubes were being used at Villa Olivia in January 2011.

[*P66] Plaintiff also claims that witness testimony raises questions of material fact as to whether the defect identifies defendant as the subject manufacturer. Plaintiff claims that defendant was aware of alleged defects in its snow tubes at Villa Olivia prior to her accident. Annie Pawson testified that she had observed defective defendant snow tubes before and that Villa Olivia employee Conrardy described the defective snow tube he observed as having a protruding crack. Additionally, plaintiff relies on her own testimony when she described the alleged defect “like a knife had gone through the ice, sharp object had gone through the ice.” Jorens testified that he discussed the cracking plastic defect with defendant, and that the plastic cracking would decrease speed on a hill. Plaintiff also observes that, prior to January 2011, defendant [**29] had received yearly complaints regarding the cracking of the plastic bottoms.8 Based on this evidence, plaintiff argues that she can prove a prima facie case without the snow tube because the defect at issue was known to defendant.

8 In her brief, plaintiff claims that, prior to January 2011, defendant received yearly complaints regarding the plastic bottoms cracking, without citing to the record.

[*P67] B. Defendant’s Arguments

[*P68] Defendant, on the other hand, argues that the evidence presented to the trial court shows that plaintiff could not identify anything about the subject snow tube which distinguished it from other tubes such that a reasonable inference could be drawn that defendant manufactured the allegedly defective snow tube. Defendant claims that, without the snow tube, plaintiff has failed to present evidence on a critical element in her product liability claim based on negligence. Since plaintiff did not and could not produce the snow tube, she could not introduce the alleged defect into evidence. Consequently, defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to show and cannot show that any defect existed at the time the snow tube left defendant’s control. Hence, without the tube itself [**30] or photos of it, defendant asserts that a jury could only speculate about whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a defect in the tube, and whether the defect was present when the snow tube allegedly left defendant’s control, and whether defendant even manufactured the snow tube. Under such circumstances, defendant argues that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in its favor.

[*P69] IV. Failure to Cite Authority

[*P70] First, we observe that plaintiff’s appellate brief fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), which requires a proponent to cite supporting authority; and the failure to do so results in waiver. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) provides that an appellant’s brief must “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). The purpose of this rule is to provide “[a] court of review” with “clearly defined” issues and cites to “pertinent authority.” People v. Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d 355, 356, 537 N.E.2d 363, 130 Ill. Dec. 296 (1989) (discussing the provisions of former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7), which is now numbered as Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), and its importance to the appellate court). A reviewing court “is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.” Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d at 356. The appellate [**31] court stated in Trimble:

“To ignore such a rule by addressing the case on the merits would require this court to be an advocate for, as well as the judge of the correctness of, defendant’s position on the issues he raises. On the other hand, strict compliance with the rules permits a reviewing court to ascertain the integrity of the parties’ assertions which is essential to an accurate determination of the issues raised on appeal.” Trimble, 181 Ill. App. 3d at 356-57.

[*P71] In the instant case, plaintiff failed to cite a single substantive case in support of her argument that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. The cases that plaintiff cites in the argument section of her brief merely establish general principles of law regarding summary judgment and a products liability action. In Part A of the argument section of her brief which discusses how the evidence justifies an inference of probability that defendant was the manufacturer of the subject snow tube, plaintiff cites only Black’s Law Dictionary and fails to cite any precedent in furtherance of her argument. Furthermore, in Part B of the argument section of her brief, plaintiff fails to cite any legal authority supporting her argument [**32] that she can prove a prima facie case without the defective tube since the defect at issue was known to defendant.9 Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), the plaintiff has waived consideration of her claim that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.

9 Plaintiff mentions Wiesner v. Fontaine Trailer Co., No. 06-CV-6239, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81672, 2010 WL 3023398 (N.D. Ill. 2010), an unreported case discussed in defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, we will not cite an unreported case. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 140447, ¶ 101, 391 Ill. Dec. 170, 30 N.E.3d 440 (“We will not cite an unreported case.”); Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 2012 IL App (1st) 111533, ¶ 15, 964 N.E.2d 1225, 358 Ill. Dec. 203 (“an unreported case” is “not binding on any court”); People v. Moore, 243 Ill. App. 3d 583, 584, 611 N.E.2d 1246, 183 Ill. Dec. 598 (1993) (“the decision was unreported and of no precedential value”). “Unreported decisions have no precedential value, and this is even more true for decisions from foreign jurisdictions.” American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Plunkett, 2014 IL App (1st) 131631 ¶ 38, 383 Ill. Dec. 393, 14 N.E.3d 676; Burnette v. Stroger, 389 Ill. App. 3d 321, 329, 905 N.E.2d 939, 329 Ill. Dec. 101 (2009); West American Insurance Co. v. J.R. Construction Co., 334 Ill. App. 3d 75, 82, 777 N.E.2d 610, 267 Ill. Dec. 807 (2002) (a “foreign, unreported decision” is of no precedential value”). Specifically, with respect to unpublished federal cases, this court has held that they do not carry any authority before an Illinois court. Lyons v. Ryan, 324 Ill. App. 3d 1094, 1107 n.11, 756 N.E.2d 396, 258 Ill. Dec. 414 (2001) (“unreported federal court orders” are not “any kind of authority before an Illinois court”); Sompolski v. Miller, 239 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1093, 608 N.E.2d 54, 180 Ill. Dec. 932 (1992) (“we decline” to follow “an unreported Federal district court decision”).

[*P72] V. No Prima Facie Case

[*P73] However, even if plaintiff did not waive her claims regarding summary judgment, [**33] plaintiff still could not prove a prima facie case without the allegedly defective snow tube. The facts in Shramek v. General Motors Corp., 69 Ill. App. 2d 72, 216 N.E.2d 244 (1966), cited by defendant, are similar to the present case. In Shramek, the plaintiff was injured when the automobile in which he was riding crashed after one of the tires suffered a blowout. Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 74. He filed both a negligence claim and a breach of implied warranty claim against the tire and auto manufacturers claiming a defect was in the tire at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller. Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 75. The tire, however, was never examined for a defect and could not be located. Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 78. The trial court granted the automobile and tire manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment, and this court affirmed. Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 77. The appellate court held that summary judgment was required because the record conclusively demonstrated that the plaintiff could not prove, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the accident was caused by a defective tire. Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 77. The court noted that the mere occurrence of a blowout does not establish a manufacturer’s negligence or that the tire was defective, since blowouts can be attributed to a myriad of causes. Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 78. The court stated:

“[A]side from a superficial inspection of the damaged car [**34] and tire after the accident by plaintiff and his cousin, the tire in question was never subjected to an examination which would reveal that the blowout was due to a pre-existing defect. Thus, without any examination of the tire designed to elicit the cause of the blowout and without the tire itself or any hope or expectation for its recovery, plaintiff could never prove, directly or inferentially, a case of negligence, breach of warranty or strict liability.” Shramek, 69 Ill. App. 2d at 78.

[*P74] The reasoning in Shramek has been cited with approval and applied in other cases (E.g., Scott v. Fruehauf Corp. 602 F. Supp. 207, 209 (S.D. Ill. 1985); Sanchez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 237 Ill. App. 3d 872, 874, 604 N.E.2d 948, 178 Ill. Dec. 425 (1992); Phillips v. U.S. Waco Corp., 163 Ill. App. 3d 410, 417, 516 N.E.2d 670, 114 Ill. Dec. 515 (1987) (discussing and applying Shramek)). In Scott, the plaintiff sued a tire rim manufacturer and distributor, alleging he was injured while working on a tire rim. Scott, 602 F. Supp. at 208. As in Shramek, the allegedly defective product was unavailable. Scott, 602 F. Supp. at 209. The court held that, because the plaintiff could not produce the rim, he “could never prove his case” and, therefore, summary judgment was proper. Scott, 602 F. Supp. at 209. The Scott case held this, even though there were photographs of the rim. Scott, 602 F. Supp. at 209. However, the court found that even photographs were insufficient because the rim had never been examined by a qualified expert and was never made available to the defendant. Scott, 602 F. Supp. at 209. In the case at [**35] bar, plaintiff does not even have photographs of the tube, and the tube was certainly never examined by an expert or made available to defendant. Thus, pursuant to the reasoning of both Shramek and Scott, summary judgment was warranted.

[*P75] Similarly, in Sanchez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 237 Ill. App. 3d 872, 872-73, 604 N.E.2d 948, 178 Ill. Dec. 425 (1992), the plaintiff brought a negligence and product liability action against defendant for improper installation of a tire and inner tube. The inner tube was unavailable and the plaintiff’s expert never examined the inner tube or took photographs of it. Sanchez, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 873. In affirming summary judgment, the appellate court held that the cause of the incident could only be left to speculation because the expert’s testimony indicated nothing more than a mere possibility that the inner tube was improperly installed. Sanchez, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 874; see also Scott, 602 F. Supp. at 209 (“the very fact that other factors could have caused the injury warranted granting of summary judgment motions since without the alleged[ly] defective product the plaintiff could never prove up his case”). Similarly, in the case at bar, without the tube, the cause of the incident could only be left to speculation.

[*P76] Lastly, in Phillips v. United States Waco Corp., 163 Ill. App. 3d 410, 417, 516 N.E.2d 670, 114 Ill. Dec. 515 (1987), the plaintiff brought a negligence and strict products liability claim against defendant for personal injuries he sustained [**36] when he fell from a scaffold manufactured by the defendant. As in Shramek, the plaintiff failed to produce the allegedly defective product involved in the accident or any photographs of it. Phillips, 163 Ill. App. 3d at 415. And as in Scott, the plaintiff failed to provide any expert testimony regarding the alleged defect in the product. Phillips, 163 Ill. App. 3d at 415. In affirming summary judgment, this court held that the plaintiff failed to present facts to support the elements of his products liability claims based in negligence and strict liability. Phillips, 163 Ill. App. 3d at 418. This court reasoned that, because the scaffold was never examined for the presence of preexisting defects, the plaintiff “could never prove, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the accident was caused by a defective scaffold, since he did not and could not produce the scaffold.” Phillips, 163 Ill. App. 3d at 418.

[*P77] Similar to the plaintiff in Phillips, plaintiff in this case did not and cannot produce the allegedly defective product involved in her accident. The subject snow tube was never retrieved or examined for defects. Plaintiff also has not produced any photographs of the snow tube itself or provided testimony by an eyewitness to the accident or its aftermath, other than plaintiff herself. Plaintiff testified [**37] that all of the photographs she took on the day of the accident were of different snow tubes in use at Villa Olivia and not of the tube involved in her accident. Plaintiff testified that the last time she saw the tube was when she left it with the Villa Olivia employees when she walked inside with the paramedic to report the accident. Plaintiff also testified that her basis for believing that defendant manufactured the tube in her accident was that she saw a different tube that had writing on it that said defendant’s name. She testified that a photograph of a snow tube used by her son showed a red colored tube, but did not indicate the manufacturer’s name on it. Without the snow tube itself or any examination of it, plaintiff cannot establish or raise a genuine issue of material fact that defendant was the manufacturer. Without the snow tube itself or any photographs of it, or an examination of the snow tube to determine if the accident was a result of a preexisting defect, plaintiff cannot prove a prima facie products liability case against defendant.

[*P78] Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we cannot find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. [**38] Outboard Marine Corp., 154 Ill. 2d at 102 (discussing when summary judgment should be granted).

[*P79] CONCLUSION

[*P80] On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial erred in granting summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was the manufacturer of the snow tube that injured her. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the manufacturer of the snow tube and thus the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant.

[*P81] Affirmed.


Zip line accused of being common carrier which makes releases unenforceable. Issue still not decided, however, in all states common carriers cannot use a release as a defense.

Many ropes courses have determined that agreeing to be supervised by the state is the way to go. In Illinois, that supervision would have voided all defenses for a challenge course because they would have been classified as a common carrier. Common carriers’ have extremely limited defenses to claims.

Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

State: Illinois, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District

Plaintiff: April Dodge

Defendant: Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, and Michael Quinn

Plaintiff Claims: negligently designing and operating its course, intentionally or recklessly violated the safety regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Labor, and thereby engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. In count II, the plaintiff claimed that Quinn, a tour guide for Grafton Zipline, was negligent in instructing the plaintiff, in inspecting and maintaining the braking system, and in failing to prevent the plaintiff from colliding with the tree. The plaintiff also alleged willful and wanton misconduct against Quinn

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: Sent back to the trial court to determine if a zip line under Illinois law is a common carrier

Year: 2015

The facts are pretty normal for zip line lawsuits. The plaintiff while riding was unable to slow down or stop and hit the tree holding the platform. In this case it was the eighth line of multiple zip lines down the mountain.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on a release signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the release was barred because the zip line was a common carrier under Illinois law and as such “they cannot exempt themselves from liability for their own negligence.”

The trial court agreed with the plaintiff that a zip line was a common carrier. That analysis was based on the theory that:

…in that zip lines fell within the definition of amusement rides pursuant to the Illinois Carnival and Amusement Rides Safety Act (430 ILCS 85/2-2 (West 2012)) and were akin to merry-go-rounds or other amusement rides that had been held to be common carriers.

The defendants filed a motion for permissive interlocutory appeal which was denied by the appellate court. However the Illinois Supreme Court directed the appellate court to vacate (reverse) its order denying the appeal.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court first looked at Illinois law on releases, calling them exculpatory clauses.

An exculpatory clause is a contractual provision that excuses the defaulting party’s liability. “Courts disfavor such agreements and construe them strictly against the benefitting party, particularly one who drafted the release.” “Nevertheless, contracting parties are free to ‘allocate the risk of negligence as they see fit, and exculpatory agreements do not violate public policy as a matter of law.'”

The analysis under Illinois law concerning releases is pretty standard. Although “disfavored” they are upheld.

Accordingly, if a valid exculpatory clause clearly applies, and in the absence of fraud or willful and wanton negligence, courts will enforce it unless “‘(1) it would be against a settled public policy of the State to do so, or (2) there is something in the social relationship of the parties militating against upholding the agreement.

Releases under Illinois law however are unenforceable when applied to common carriers as releases for common carriers create a violation of public policy.

Exculpatory agreements between the public and those charged with a duty of public service, such as those involving a common carrier, an innkeeper, a public warehouseman, or a public utility, have been held to be unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

The unenforceability of a release between a passenger and a common carrier is due to the relationship between the two.

Courts have alternatively recognized that exculpatory agreements between common carriers and passengers are unenforceable because of the special social relationship of a semipublic nature that permeates the transaction between the parties.

Arguments given for this are based on the fact the passenger pays for transportation from one location to another and during that transportation the passenger is totally at the control of the common carrier. The passenger cannot drive, inspect the track, road or path of travel, work on the engines or anything of that manner. The only thing the passenger can do is sit back and ride. The passenger has no control over their safety.

In this case, slowing or braking was under the control of the plaintiff.

A common carrier is held to the highest duty of care when transporting passengers.

Common carriers are charged with the highest duty of care when transporting passengers because passengers must wholly rely upon a common carrier’s proper maintenance and safe operation of its equipment during passage.

In Illinois common carriers have been identified as: “owners of buildings with elevators; a scenic railway at an amusement resort, where “steep inclines, sharp curves, and great speed necessarily are sources of peril”; a merry-go-round; a taxicab; and a Ferris wheel.” Here, as in most states, the safety of the passenger is totally under the control of the owner of the ride. What is different is normally a common carrier is taking people from once location to another, not around in circle or down a mountain you just ascended.

The court also examined and compared common carriers with private carriers.

Further, courts have distinguished between a common and a private carrier. “A common carrier, generally, is a carrier hired to carry any person who applies for passage as long as there is room available and there is no legal excuse for refusing.” “Ordinarily, a common carrier must accept as a passenger any person offering himself or herself for passage at the proper time and in the proper manner and who is able and willing to pay the fare.”

Here again, a common carrier is easily identified as a train, bus service or airline.

A common carrier holds himself out as such by advertising or by actually engaging in the business and pursuing the occupation as an employment. The test to distinguish a common carrier from a private carrier is whether the carrier serves all of the public alike.

The distinction between private carrier and a common carrier is gray in Illinois and the court spent time reviewing the issues. If the passenger actively can participate in the transportation and contributed to his or her own safety, the carrier is not a common carrier. In Illinois not being a common carrier does not necessarily mean a private person is a Private Carrier.

Private carriers as ordinarily defined are those who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertake to deliver goods or passengers in a particular case for hire or reward.” A private carrier makes no public profession to carry all who apply for transport, transports only by special agreement, and is not bound to serve every person who may apply.

Normally the distinction is made by the courts based on whether or not the carrier is a business, in the business of moving people from one place to another for a fee. Trains, busses, airlines are common carriers. Here the definition is confused because of the existence in Illinois of a broad definition of private carrier that is to say the least confusing.

Whether a particular transportation service is undertaken in the capacity of a private or of a common carrier must be determined by reference to the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, and also by the nature of the service to be performed in the particular instance.”

It is this distinction that the court found to be at issue in this case, whether a zip line is a common carrier or a private carrier.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court to determine if a zip line under Illinois law is a private carrier or a common carrier. If the trial court, which has ruled once already that a zip line, is a common carrier, rules the zip line is a common carrier, the sole issue at trial will be damages. How large will the check be that the zip line writes the plaintiff?

So Now What?

Readily accepting government regulation may provide a degree of relief in that you pass the safety inspection you are good for the season. However, once you are under that regulatory umbrella, you may also be classified by the regulations, statutes or the courts in a way you did not anticipate. You may lose defenses available to you prior to regulation.

This is similar to having a statute passed which provides liability protection for you. However this can be a two edge sword. Many state supreme courts have held that once a statute is enacted to provide protection, the only protection available is from the statute.

Many states create special categories for regulated industries. Here, falling under the regulation of the state classified the zip line as a common carrier.

The good news is the appellate court did not see the zip line as immediately qualifying as being controlled by the statute. Statutes usually define what they cover and the court did not even investigate the definition in this case.

However the court did look into whether or not a zip line was a common carrier. If the trial court finds that it is, there will be no end to the claims against zip lines in Illinois. Looked at another way, if the trial court determines a zip line is a common carrier, there will be an end to zip lines.

clip_image002What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

 

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

 

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law           Rec-law@recreation-law.com     James H. Moss

 

 

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Zip Line, Zipline, Common Carrier, Private Carrier, Release, Exculpatory Clause,

 


Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

April Dodge, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, and Michael Quinn, Defendants-Petitioners.

NO. 5-14-0124

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

July 14, 2015, Decision Filed

NOTICE: THIS ORDER WAS FILED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 23 AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY ANY PARTY EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED UNDER RULE 23(E)(1).

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County. No. 13-L-238. Honorable Barbara L. Crowder, Judge, Presiding.

Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2014 Ill. LEXIS 1270, 387 Ill. Dec. 513, 22 N.E.3d 1166 (Ill., 2014)

JUDGES: JUSTICE SCHWARM delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Moore concurred in the judgment.

OPINION BY: SCHWARM

OPINION

ORDER

[*P1] Held: Appellate court declines to answer the certified question and remands to the trial court to hear evidence to determine whether exculpatory agreement is between the public and one charged with a duty of public service, i.e., a common carrier, and therefore unenforceable.

[*P2] The plaintiff, April Dodge, filed the instant suit seeking recovery for injuries she sustained while riding on an aerial zip line course designed and operated by defendant Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC (Grafton Zipline), by which defendant Michael Quinn is employed. The circuit court certified a question after denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

[*P3] BACKGROUND

[*P4] In her first amended complaint filed on May 3, 2013, the plaintiff alleged that Grafton Zipline operated an aerial zip line course in which paying guests, riding from one elevated platform to another, were guided over a series of suspended wire cable runs. The plaintiff alleged that [**2] “guests [we]re outfitted with a harness and pulley system which attache[d] to the suspended cables and which in theory allow[ed] them to control their speed by braking on descents.” The plaintiff alleged that on the eighth run of the zip line course, the plaintiff’s braking system failed to slow her descent, she approached the landing platform at a high rate of speed, and she violently struck the trunk of the tree on which the landing platform was mounted, fracturing her right heel bone.

[*P5] In count I, the plaintiff alleged that Grafton Zipline was a common carrier that breached its duty of care by negligently designing and operating its course, intentionally or recklessly violated the safety regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Labor (56 Ill. Adm. Code 6000.350 (2013)), and thereby engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. In count II, the plaintiff claimed that Quinn, a tour guide for Grafton Zipline, was negligent in instructing the plaintiff, in inspecting and maintaining the braking system, and in failing to prevent the plaintiff from colliding with the tree. The plaintiff also alleged willful and wanton misconduct against Quinn.

[*P6] On June 7, 2013, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012)), the defendants [**3] filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by an exculpatory agreement signed by the plaintiff prior to her participation in the zip line activity. In the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to release the defendants from liability for injury, disability, death, or loss or damage to persons or property, whether caused by negligence or otherwise.

[*P7] In the plaintiff’s memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserted that the defendants’ exculpatory agreement was unenforceable. The plaintiff asserted that zip line courses are common carriers under Illinois law, and as such, they cannot exempt themselves from liability for their own negligence.

[*P8] On November 1, 2013, the circuit court held that exculpatory clauses were unenforceable against plaintiffs injured by the ordinary negligence of a common carrier. The circuit court noted that when parties disagree as to whether a defendant is a common carrier, the question becomes a controverted question of fact to be determined after considering evidence. However, the circuit court found that the pleadings before it alleged sufficient [**4] facts to establish that the defendants were common carriers, in that zip lines fell within the definition of amusement rides pursuant to the Illinois Carnival and Amusement Rides Safety Act (430 ILCS 85/2-2 (West 2012)) and were akin to merry-gorounds or other amusement rides that had been held to be common carriers. The circuit court thereby denied the defendants’ section 2-619 motion to dismiss based on the exculpatory clause but also stated that “questions of fact remain as to whether [d]efendants *** are within the definition of common carriers.”

[*P9] On March 6, 2014, the circuit court, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010), entered its order certifying the following question for appeal:

“Is an exculpatory agreement signed by a participant on a zip[ ]line course, that released the zip[ ]line operator and its employees from their own negligence, enforceable to bar the participant’s suit for negligence, or is the zip[ ]line course a common carrier such that the exculpatory agreement is unenforceable?”

[*P10] On March 20, 2014, the defendants filed an application for permissive interlocutory appeal, which we denied on April 21, 2014. On September 24, 2014, however, the Illinois Supreme Court directed this court to vacate its judgment denying [**5] the defendants’ application for leave to appeal and directed us to grant such application. Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 387 Ill. Dec. 513, 22 N.E.3d 1166 (Ill. 2014). On November 5, 2014, per the supreme court’s supervisory order and pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, we thereafter allowed the defendants’ permissive interlocutory appeal.

[*P11] ANALYSIS

[*P12] On appeal, the defendants argue that the exculpatory agreement signed by the plaintiff bars her negligence claims and that the exculpatory agreement is enforceable because Grafton Zipline is not a common carrier. The plaintiff counters that the circuit court’s certified question is not ripe for determination because there are unresolved questions of fact regarding whether Grafton Zipline is a common carrier. We agree with the plaintiff.

[*P13] “The scope of review in an interlocutory appeal brought under [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 308 is limited to the certified question.” Spears v. Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives, 2013 IL App (4th) 120289, ¶ 15, 986 N.E.2d 216, 369 Ill. Dec. 267. “A reviewing court should only answer a certified question if it asks a question of law and [should] decline to answer where the ultimate disposition ‘will depend on the resolution of a host of factual predicates.’ [Citations.]” Id. “A certified question pursuant to Rule 308 is reviewed de novo.” Id.

[*P14] An exculpatory [**6] clause is a contractual provision that excuses the defaulting party’s liability. See Black’s Law Dictionary 648 (9th ed. 2009) (defining an exculpatory clause as “a contractual provision relieving a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act”); McKinney v. Castleman, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14, 968 N.E.2d 185, 360 Ill. Dec. 106 (exculpatory agreement involves express assumption of risk wherein one party consents to relieve another of a particular obligation). “Courts disfavor such agreements and construe them strictly against the benefitting party, particularly one who drafted the release.” McKinney, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14. “Nevertheless, contracting parties are free to ‘allocate the risk of negligence as they see fit, and exculpatory agreements do not violate public policy as a matter of law.'” Id. (quoting Evans v. Lima Lima Flight Team, Inc., 373 Ill. App. 3d 407, 412, 869 N.E.2d 195, 311 Ill. Dec. 521 (2007)).

[*P15] Accordingly, if a valid exculpatory clause clearly applies, and in the absence of fraud or willful and wanton negligence, courts will enforce it unless “‘(1) it would be against a settled public policy of the State to do so, or (2) there is something in the social relationship of the parties militating against upholding the agreement.'” McKinney, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14 (quoting Harris v. Walker, 119 Ill. 2d 542, 548, 519 N.E.2d 917, 116 Ill. Dec. 702 (1988)). Exculpatory agreements between the public and those charged with a duty of public service, such as those involving a common [**7] carrier, an innkeeper, a public warehouseman, or a public utility, have been held to be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. McKinney, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14; Johnson v. Salvation Army, 2011 IL App (1st) 103323, ¶ 19, 957 N.E.2d 485, 354 Ill. Dec. 169; White v. Village of Homewood, 256 Ill. App. 3d 354, 358-59, 628 N.E.2d 616, 195 Ill. Dec. 152 (1993). Courts have alternatively recognized that exculpatory agreements between common carriers and passengers are unenforceable because of the special social relationship of a semipublic nature that permeates the transaction between the parties. See McClure Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Reuben Donnelley Corp., 101 Ill. App. 3d 1109, 1111, 428 N.E.2d 1151, 57 Ill. Dec. 471 (1981); First Financial Insurance Co. v. Purolator Security, Inc., 69 Ill. App. 3d 413, 419, 388 N.E.2d 17, 26 Ill. Dec. 393 (1979) (“when an exculpatory provision is found invalid because of a special relationship between the parties, it is the semipublic nature of the party seeking to exculpate itself from liability that allows the court to invalidate the provision”).

[*P16] Thus, any contract by which a common carrier of goods or passengers undertakes to relieve itself from liability for loss or damage arising from its negligence or the negligence of its servants is void. Checkley v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 257 Ill. 491, 494, 100 N.E. 942 (1913); Simmons v. Columbus Venetian Stevens Buildings, Inc., 20 Ill. App. 2d 1, 17, 155 N.E.2d 372 (1958); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496B cmt. g (1965) (“Where the defendant is a common carrier ***, or is otherwise charged with a duty of public service, and the agreement to assume the risk relates to the defendant’s performance of any part of that duty, it is well settled that it will not be given effect.”). “Having undertaken the duty to the public, which includes the obligation of reasonable care, [**8] [common carriers] are not free to rid themselves of their public obligation by contract, or by any other agreement.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496B cmt. g (1965).

[*P17] An exculpatory contract, wherein a common carrier of goods or passengers undertakes to exempt itself from liability for negligence “if sustained, would relieve the carrier from its essential and important duties to the public growing out of the character of its employment, and tend to defeat the foundation principle on which the law of common carriers is based; that is, the securing of the highest care and diligence in the performance of the important duties due to the public.” Checkley, 257 Ill. at 494; see also Simmons, 20 Ill. App. 2d at 17. “The heightened status afforded to common carrier[ ] *** relationships is based on the protection of the public ***.” Zerjal v. Daech & Bauer Construction, Inc., 405 Ill. App. 3d 907, 912, 939 N.E.2d 1067, 345 Ill. Dec. 887 (2010); see also Simmons, 20 Ill. App. 2d at 17 (“It has been said if there is any general reason for the rule to be deduced from the passenger cases, it is that the public service consideration alone prevents contractual limitation of liability for negligence.”).

[*P18] In holding that a common carrier has a duty to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its conveyances to protect its passengers (Rotheli v. Chicago Transit Authority, 7 Ill. 2d 172, 177-78, 130 N.E.2d 172 (1955); Browne v. Chicago Transit Authority, 19 Ill. App. 3d 914, 917, 312 N.E.2d 287 (1974)), courts have considered the “‘unique control [a common [**9] carrier] possesses over its passengers’ safety.'” Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 391 Ill. App. 3d 663, 666, 909 N.E.2d 887, 330 Ill. Dec. 865 (2009) (quoting Sheffer v. Springfield Airport Authority, 261 Ill. App. 3d 151, 154, 632 N.E.2d 1069, 198 Ill. Dec. 458 (1994)); see also O’Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 242 Ill. 336, 345, 89 N.E. 1005 (1909) (“If the injury of a passenger is caused by apparatus wholly under the control of a carrier and furnished and managed by it, and the accident is of such a character that it would not ordinarily occur if due care is used, the law raises a presumption of negligence.”). “Common carriers are charged with the highest duty of care when transporting passengers because passengers must wholly rely upon a common carrier’s proper maintenance and safe operation of its equipment during passage.” Sheffer, 261 Ill. App. 3d at 156. “[C]ommon carriers are responsible for their patrons’ physical safety for which there is no second chance if a mistake should occur.” Zerjal, 405 Ill. App. 3d at 912.

[*P19] In determining whether a defendant is a common carrier that owes the highest degree of care in transporting its passengers, the courts have characterized the following as common carriers: owners of buildings with elevators (Rotheli, 7 Ill. 2d at 177); a scenic railway at an amusement resort, where “steep inclines, sharp curves, and great speed necessarily are sources of peril” (O’Callaghan, 242 Ill. at 344); a merry-go-round (Arndt v. Riverview Park Co., 259 Ill. App. 210, 216-17 (1930)); a taxicab (Metz v. Yellow Cab Co., 248 Ill. App. 609, 612 (1928)); and a Ferris wheel (Pajak v. Mamsch, 338 Ill. App. 337, 341, 87 N.E.2d 147 (1949)).

[*P20] In finding that an escalator was not a common carrier, the Illinois Supreme Court in Tolman found [**10] it significant that a person on an escalator may actively participate in the transportation in a manner similar to the use of a stairway and may contribute to his own safety. Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc., 38 Ill. 2d 519, 526, 233 N.E.2d 33 (1967). The court noted that the role of a passenger on a train, bus, or elevator is a passive one, and ordinarily such a passenger cannot exercise any control over his own safety. Id. at 525. The court further held that the rule as to the higher duty one owning and operating an elevator owes to a passenger riding in same, who is injured through some defect in its operating mechanism, is predicated upon the fact that a person riding in an elevator cannot possibly know or show, if such elevator gets out of control, what caused it to do so. Id. at 524-25. The court noted that because the elevator owner was in sole control of the elevator and the machinery used in its operation, an inference of negligence on the part of said owner arose out of the circumstances. Id.; see also Lombardo v. Reliance Elevator Co., 315 Ill. App. 3d 111, 125, 733 N.E.2d 874, 248 Ill. Dec. 199 (2000) (because bank had full control of premises, it had the duties of common carrier owed to the plaintiff who suffered injuries when the lift he was riding suddenly fell); Carson v. Weston Hotel Corp., 351 Ill. App. 523, 532, 115 N.E.2d 800 (1953) (lessee in full control of the premises had the duties of a common carrier of elevator [**11] passengers).

[*P21] While proper solicitude for human safety requires a carrier of passengers not to diminish its liability to them, the relative bargaining power of the parties is also a factor. Simmons, 20 Ill. App. 2d at 17. In Hamer v. City Segway Tours of Chicago, LLC, 402 Ill. App. 3d 42, 43-44, 930 N.E.2d 578, 341 Ill. Dec. 368 (2010), the plaintiff sought to recover for injuries she suffered on a tour run where she rode a segway onto a small grassy hill, and it threw her off. The plaintiff signed a release before participating in the tour. Id. The plaintiff argued, however, that her social relationship with the defendant and its tour guide rendered the release unenforceable. Id. at 46. The court concluded, without analysis, that the defendant was not a common carrier. Id. Finding also that that there was no disparity of bargaining power because the plaintiff simply could have refused to join the tour if she had disagreed with the exculpatory clause, the court held that the exculpatory language of the release was enforceable. Id.

[*P22] Further, courts have distinguished between a common and a private carrier. “A common carrier, generally, is a carrier hired to carry any person who applies for passage as long as there is room available and there is no legal excuse for refusing.” Long v. Illinois Power Co., 187 Ill. App. 3d 614, 628, 543 N.E.2d 525, 135 Ill. Dec. 142 (1989). “Ordinarily, a common carrier must accept as a passenger [**12] any person offering himself or herself for passage at the proper time and in the proper manner and who is able and willing to pay the fare.” Id. “[A] common carrier may be liable for an unexcused refusal to carry all who apply.” Doe v. Rockdale School District No. 84, 287 Ill. App. 3d 791, 794, 679 N.E.2d 771, 223 Ill. Dec. 320 (1997). A common carrier is “obligated by law to undertake the charge of transportation, which none but a common carrier, without a special agreement, is.” Rathbun v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 299 Ill. 562, 566, 132 N.E. 754 (1921).

[*P23] A common carrier holds himself out as such by advertising or by actually engaging in the business and pursuing the occupation as an employment. Id. at 567. The test to distinguish a common carrier from a private carrier is whether the carrier serves all of the public alike. Green v. Carlinville Community Unit School District No. 1, 381 Ill. App. 3d 207, 211, 887 N.E.2d 451, 320 Ill. Dec. 307 (2008); Illinois Highway Transportation Co. v. Hantel, 323 Ill. App. 364, 375, 55 N.E.2d 710 (1944). Again, common carriers necessarily have control and regulation of the passengers’ conduct and of the operation of the carriage before they can be held to the extraordinary liability of common carriers to such passengers. Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 567 (evidence that deceased contracted car by private contract and had control of car and driver revealed defendant was not common carrier but was liable only as private carrier for ordinary negligence).

[*P24] “Private carriers as ordinarily defined are those who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertake [**13] to deliver goods or passengers in a particular case for hire or reward.” Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 566. A private carrier makes no public profession to carry all who apply for transport, transports only by special agreement, and is not bound to serve every person who may apply. Green, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 211; Rockdale School District No. 84, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 795.

[*P25] “Whether a particular transportation service is undertaken in the capacity of a private or of a common carrier must be determined by reference to the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, and also by the nature of the service to be performed in the particular instance.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Long, 187 Ill. App. 3d at 630. When a plaintiff affirms and the defendant denies that the defendant is operating as a common carrier, the question becomes a controverted question of fact to be determined by a consideration of the evidence by the trial court. Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 566; Bare v. American Forwarding Co., 242 Ill. 298, 299, 89 N.E. 1021 (1909); Hantel, 323 Ill. App. at 374; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Fisher, 291 Ill. App. 495, 497, 10 N.E.2d 220 (1937).

[*P26] Accordingly, we find that whether Grafton Zipline is a common carrier is a question of fact, “dependent upon the nature of the business in which [it is] engaged, and [is] to be determined from a consideration of all of the evidence.” Beatrice Creamery Co., 291 Ill. App. at 497. In its order, the circuit court noted that questions of fact remained regarding whether Grafton Zipline is a common carrier. [**14] We agree and find this so with regard to the certified question. To determine whether the exculpatory clause is unenforceable on the basis that Grafton Zipline is a common carrier “charged with a duty of public service” the court must necessarily determine disputed factual issues. The court must determine whether Grafton Zipline had control and regulation of the passengers’ conduct and of the operation of the carriage (see Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 567 (evidence that deceased contracted car by private contract and had control of car and driver revealed defendant was not common carrier but was liable only as private carrier for ordinary negligence)); whether the plaintiff actively participated in the transportation and contributed to her own safety (Tolman, 38 Ill. 2d at 525-26 (because escalator allowed the plaintiff to actively participate in the transportation and allowed control over safety, escalator not common carrier); whether there was a disparity of bargaining power between the parties (see Hamer, 402 Ill. App. 3d at 43-44 (exculpatory clause enforceable where plaintiff could simply have refused to join the segway tour)); and whether Grafton Zipline made a profession to carry all who applied for carriage (see Browne v. SCR Medical Transportation Services, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 642, 647, 826 N.E.2d 1030, 292 Ill. Dec. 594 (2005) (because medical transport van served only those individuals [**15] who met its eligibility requirements, could decline to serve anyone based on numerous factors such as location and availability of medical transport vans, made no profession to carry all who apply for carriage, and was not bound to serve every person who may apply, medical transport van was not a common carrier)). To answer the certified question before the circuit court has heard evidence on these matters would be premature. Thus, we decline to answer the certified question, and we remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this order. See Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 477, 693 N.E.2d 358, 230 Ill. Dec. 229 (1998).

[*P27] CONCLUSION

[*P28] For the reasons stated, we decline to answer the certified question as its ultimate disposition depends on the resolution of multiple factual predicates. We remand the cause to the Madison County circuit court for further proceedings.

[*P29] Certified question not answered; cause remanded.


No sign so the 13-year-old girl did not know the park was only for kids under age 12. (Like kids read signs anyway.)

A broken slide in a park injures the plaintiff. The defendant city says they are not liable because the 13-year-old should have seen the hole, and the park was only for kids under age 12 anyway.

How can a sign warn a kid when the law created the attractive nuisance claim for kids? A kid sees a sign and is going to stop and read the signs? Signs are for adults.

Bowman v. The Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

State: Illinois, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District Fifth Division

Plaintiff: Artenia Bowman, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Cheneka Ross

Defendant: The Chicago Park District

Plaintiff Claims: (1) that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that CPD (Chicago Park District) had designated the park and the slide for only children under 12 years old; (2) that the danger created by the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious; and (3) that CPD’s failure to repair the slide, after being informed almost a year earlier of the danger, constituted willful and wanton conduct

Defendant Defenses: (1) that it did not owe any duty to plaintiff because she was not an intended user of the slide (2) that the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was an open and obvious risk

Holding: for Plaintiff, sent back for trial

Year: 2014

The case is written a little differently. The decision only references all the affidavits and depositions of the witnesses and draws its facts and conclusions that way.

The case is pretty simple. A slide in a Chicago city park had a hole in the bottom. The 13-year-old plaintiff slid down the slide catching her foot in the hole and fractured her ankle. Her mother sued on her behalf.

The trial court dismissed the case on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court found the park was only for 12 year olds and younger kids and since the plaintiff was 13, she could not sue.  The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The decision at the appellate level found the following facts:

There was no sign posted at the park indicating the park was only for a specific set of patrons. The park district (Chicago Park District or CPD) had passed an ordinance that restricted the park to only kids 12 and younger. The park district had been notified numerous times for over 18 months by several different people that the slide was in need of repair. The CPD knew that the slide was in need of repair. The plaintiff had gone to the park with other kids who were younger, and this was her first time at the park.

Although the CPD had passed an ordinance on the use of the park, the CPD had never promulgated the ordinance (so that anyone knew about the rule). The CPD owes a duty of care to intended and permitted users of park property. The ordinance limiting the use of the park has the same force as a municipal ordinance. Accordingly, the CPD argued that they were immune from liability because the park was designed for kids younger than the plaintiff.

The issue revolved around the failure of the park to let the public know about the rules.

It is a long-established principle that members of the public must have a reasonable opportunity to be informed of an ordinance so that they may conform their conduct accordingly and avoid liability under the ordinance.

Nor was there anything in any CPD code stating that the park in question was designated for children under age 12. There were no signs at the playground stating the park was only for children under the age of 12. Which the court interpreted as: “Playgrounds are designed for children. What would prompt a 13-year-old child to observe a slide and think, “am I really the intended user of this slide?

Because no one knew and because the park had no sign, there was no way the plaintiff could know that she was not supposed to use the slide. The court ruled.

We must reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment which was granted solely on the basis that a 13-year-old was not an intended user of the slide.

First, the defendant does not cite a case where a child was charged with the responsibility of knowing municipal ordinances, without a sign or other notice, nor can we find such a case.

Second, defendant failed to inform park users of any age, by any means, that this park and the slide were intended for children younger than age 12.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court.

So Now What?

If you have the ability to make rules, then follow the rules when you make rules, to make sure your rules are correctly in place. Under the law post your rules at the places, the rules were created to apply to so everyone knows the rules.

Realistically, if you want kids not to get hurt, rules and signs are not going to do it. The rules are there to protect the park, not the kids. How many kids read signs?

Are we going to have a new way of warning children? “Mom I’m going to out to play.” “OK dear, but be back before dark and make sure you read all the signs that may apply to you.”

clip_image002

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2014 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law       Rec-law@recreation-law.com              James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, CPD, Chicago Park District, Park, Slide, Ordinance, Signs, Warning Signs,


Bowman v. The Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

Bowman v. The Chicago Park District, 2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

Artenia Bowman, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Cheneka Ross, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Chicago Park District, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-13-2122

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION

2014 IL App (1st) 132122; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 648

September 5, 2014, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Corrected.

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 11 L 7865. The Honorable Kathy M. Flanagan, Judge Presiding.

Bowman v. Chi. Park Dist., 2014 IL App (1st) 132122-U, 2014 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1420 (2014)

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.

COUNSEL: For Appellant: Paul A. Greenberg, Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, of Chicago, IL.

For Appellee: George P. Smyrniotis, Risk Management Senior Counsel, Robert L. Raymond, Marie Christelle Levesque (Legal Extern), Chicago Park District, of Chicago, IL.

JUDGES: JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Palmer and Justice Taylor concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION BY: GORDON

OPINION

[*P1] Plaintiff Artenia Bowman, individually and as mother and next friend of Cheneka Ross, a minor, filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County against the Chicago Park District (CPD) alleging willful and wanton conduct for failing, for almost a year, to repair a damaged slide. Plaintiff’s daughter, Cheneka Ross, age 13, was going down a slide on April 21, 2011, when her foot became caught in a hole in the plastic at the bottom of the slide, resulting in a fractured ankle. Defendant CPD owns the property and maintains the playground equipment, including the slide.

[*P2] Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2010)) claiming: (1) that it did not owe any duty to Cheneka because she was not an intended user of the slide since she was 13 years old and the slide was intended for children aged under 12; and (2) that the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was an open and obvious risk that the 13-year-old [**2] should have avoided. Plaintiff, in her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, claims.

[*P3] The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that 13-year-old Cheneka had violated a CPD ordinance by using a slide that had been designed for children under 12 years old, although there were no signs to indicate an age limit. Since the trial court found that Cheneka was not an intended user of the slide, it did not discuss whether the damage was open and obvious or whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P4] On this direct appeal, plaintiff argues: (1) that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary judgment on the basis that 13-year-old Cheneka was not an intended user of defendant’s slide; (2) that the danger created by the hole at the [**3] bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious; and (3) that CPD’s failure to repair the slide, after being informed of its condition almost a year earlier, constituted willful and wanton conduct.

[*P5] For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that Cheneka was not the intended user of the slide and reverse. We remand for the trial court to decide whether the slide’s condition was open and obvious and whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide after being notified was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P6] BACKGROUND

[*P7] I. The Complaint

[*P8] The complaint at issue on this appeal is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which was filed on March 1, 2012. The suit seeks damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s daughter, Cheneka, when she damaged her ankle on a park slide on April 21, 2011. The complaint alleges that Cheneka was using the slide when her foot came in contact with a hole that caused a fracture in her ankle; and that defendant CPD was aware that the slide was dangerous and had failed to repair it. Count I alleges defendant acted willfully and wantonly toward users of the slide by failing to repair the slide even though it had received [**4] numerous complaints from the community. Count II sought recovery on behalf of her daughter’s medical expenses under the Rights of Married Persons Act, commonly known as the Family Expense Act. 750 ILCS 65/15 (West 2010).

[*P9] II. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[*P10] On January 13, 2013, defendant, as noted, filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming: (1) that it did not owe any duty to Cheneka because she was not an intended user of the slide; and (2) that the slide was an open and obvious risk that the 13-year-old should have avoided.

[*P11] CPD argued that it had an ordinance stating that children age 12 and older should not use playground equipment designed for children under the age of 12. CPD claims that, since Cheneka was 13 years old, she violated the ordinance, and CPD was immune from liability.

[*P12] CPD also claimed that the danger at the bottom of the curved slide was open and obvious, and that the 13-year-old should not have used the slide because a reasonable child would have avoided it. CPD also claimed that, since the 13-year-old was unsupervised, she should be old enough to appreciate obvious risks; however, issues of supervision were not raised on appeal.

[*P13] Plaintiff responded to the motion contending [**5] that defendant had failed to establish that the 13-year-old was not the intended user of the slide. She claimed that the park was open to the public and no sign was present in the park prohibiting children age 12 and older from using the slide. Plaintiff also contended that the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious because she was unable to see the hole prior to being injured. The slide was curved, which made it difficult for children to observe what was in front of them.

[*P14] III. Exhibits

[*P15] A. Cheneka Ross’s Deposition

[*P16] Cheneka testified in a discovery deposition that, on April 21, 2011, she went with friends to a park located at 1420 North Artesian Avenue1 to play a game of tag. Most of her friends were several years younger than her, including her brother. It was around 7 p.m. and starting to become dark. She had played at this park before and had been there several times. While playing tag, Cheneka ran to the slide to avoid being tagged by one of her friends. She went up the slide and when she descended, her foot became caught in a hole in the plastic, at the bottom of the slide, causing a fractured ankle requiring surgery.

1 The parties agree that the park is known [**6] as Park 399.

[*P17] Cheneka testified that she did not observe the hole at the bottom of the slide before her foot became caught. She did not observe the crack from the top of the slide and identified a photograph of the slide. The photograph, which was introduced at the deposition, showed that the slide was curved, and the top of the slide did not line up with the bottom.

[*P18] B. Artenia Bowman’s Affidavit and Deposition

[*P19] Artenia Bowman is Cheneka’s mother. In an affidavit attached to plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment, Cheneka’s mother alleges that there were no signs posted which designated the age group for the playground. Specifically, there were no signs stating that the play equipment was intended for those 2 to 12 years old2 and that those 13 years or older were prohibited.

2 We note that this age range conflicts with the Chicago Park District Code (CPD Code), which states certain parks are designated for children under age 12. Chicago Park District Code ch. 7, § B(3)(e) (amended July 28, 1992).

[*P20] Cheneka’s mother testified that, after the incident, the park had been renovated, and after the renovation, new signs were posted stating that the park was intended for children [**7] under the age of 12.

[*P21] C. Juan Moreno’s Deposition

[*P22] Juan Moreno lives about 300 feet away from the park. Moreno testified in a discovery deposition that he goes to the park on a daily basis for a walk and some fresh air. He observed the damage to the slide for about a year and a half. He testified that the slide was “cracked really bad,” and it had a lot of water buildup at its bottom. Moreno had called 311 and was directed to CPD several times to report the broken slide’s condition before Cheneka was injured. Moreno testified that he spoke to an unnamed CPD supervisor in person, about a year prior to the incident, to complain about the slide. He also has contacted Alderman Roberto Maldonado’s office three times regarding the condition of the slide.

[*P23] Moreno testified that he still observed children playing on the broken slide despite its condition. He also mentioned that he observed older children at the park.

[*P24] D. Kathleen Oskandy’s Deposition

[*P25] Kathleen Oskandy, Alderman Maldonado’s chief of staff, spoke to Cheneka’s mother after the incident. Oskandy testified in a discovery deposition that she informed Cheneka’s mother that Moreno had already filed complaints with the alderman’s office [**8] about the slide before the incident. Oskandy reported the condition of the slide to CPD in July 2010 after being informed by Moreno.

[*P26] Oskandy provided a computer printout of the complaints regarding the park maintained by her office. It was a timeline of Moreno’s initial complaint, along with subsequent comments. The log showed a complaint made on July 29, 2010, about the slide’s condition and additional comments when CPD was contacted. On August 24, 2010, the log stated: “slide boarded up and waiting for repair.” One week prior to the incident in April 2011, the log stated, “slide west of park still broken.” On April 25, 2011, the log mentioned that Cheneka was injured and “[CPD] replaced slide for repair.”

[*P27] E. Gladys Ruiz’s Deposition

[*P28] Gladys Ruiz works in Alderman Maldonado’s office answering calls and inputting data. Ruiz explained in a discovery deposition the procedure of how staff entered complaints in the office computer. On July 29, 2010,3 Moreno had called the office, and Ruiz logged his complaint about the slide. She made a note about the damaged slide in the computer log. Ruiz interpreted the log provided by Oskandy and explained that Oskandy was the one that closed out the [**9] file on August 27 when Oskandy contacted CPD.

3 The computer printout of the log shows a date of July 29, but Ruiz’s deposition testimony states July 19.

[*P29] F. Robert Rejman’s Affidavit and Deposition

[*P30] Robert Rejman is the director of development and planning for CPD. His duties include developing policies for park district facilities and establishing and improving playgrounds. In an affidavit attached to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Rejman stated that “he was personally familiar with Park 399” and he “reviewed the plaintiff’s photographs of the playground equipment and can say that this equipment is commonly in the design of playgrounds that are intended for users between the ages of two to twelve.” He additionally stated that a sign was posted at the park indicating that playground equipment is designed for children aged 2 to 124; however, his affidavit did not state when the sign was posted or whether the sign was posted at the time of 13-year-old Cheneka’s injury.

4 We note that this age range conflicts with the CPD Code, which states certain parks are designated for children under age 12. Chicago Park District Code ch. 7, § B(3)(e) (amended July 28, 1992).

[*P31] Rejman later testified [**10] in a discovery deposition that he visited the park only once at some unknown point before the incident. He stated that he was unaware if there were any signs posted outside the park designating the age range when he was there. We observe that this testimony conflicts with the affidavit, where he stated that a sign was posted in the park. Rejman also stated that he was unaware if there had been any recent improvements to the park. Rejman characterized the park as a “play lot,” a park with most equipment for children age 12 and under. He testified there are different areas for younger children because “it’s safer for kids within a certain age groups to have space to play *** within that age group. *** It’s important to [parents] to provide that safe zone of play for younger children.”

[*P32] G. John Shostack’s Deposition

[*P33] John Shostack is a maintenance foreman for CPD’s natural resources landscape maintenance department. He testified in a discovery deposition that he was assigned to the park in 2010, but was not assigned there at the time of the incident in 2011. Shostack claimed to have stopped by the park at least once a week when he was assigned to the park. He admitted that he was aware [**11] of the slide’s damaged condition in 2010. Shostack placed a work order in 2010 to have the slide repaired; however, it was not his job to follow up, as that task was assigned to a different department. Shostack testified that he remembered seeing a wooden board placed at the top of the slide to prevent use, and yellow caution tape surrounded the slide. Shostack could not recall how long the board or caution tape was present on the slide. He would put up caution tape as a courtesy on one day, and it would be absent the next time he was there. He also testified that he could not recall if any actual repairs were done on the slide while he was assigned to the park.

[*P34] IV. Trial Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment

[*P35] On June 10, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant CPD, finding that Cheneka had violated a CPD ordinance and was not an intended user:

“Here, there is a dispute as to whether the subject playground displayed a sign restricting the use of the playground to persons under the age of twelve. However, the Chicago Park District enacted an ordinance restricting the use of playgrounds to children under the age of twelve. The ordinance itself is the manifestation [**12] of the Park District’s intent vis-a-vis the use of the playground. As such, whether or not there was a sign on the subject playground, the minor Plaintiff here was not an intended user of it.”

[*P36] The trial court did not discuss whether the damage to the slide was open and obvious, or whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide was willful and wanton conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the ground that the 13-year-old was not an intended user because of her age.

[*P37] On July 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.

[*P38] ANALYSIS

[*P39] Plaintiff Artenia Bowman appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Chicago Park District.

[*P40] On this appeal, plaintiff argues: (1) that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary judgment on the basis that 13-year-old Cheneka was not an intended user of defendant’s slide; (2) that the danger created by the hole at the bottom of the curved slide was not open and obvious; and (3) that CPD’s failure to repair the slide, after being informed of its condition almost a year earlier, constituted willful and wanton conduct.

[*P41] With respect to the first issue, defendant [**13] claims that Cheneka was not the intended user of the slide, and therefore, it is not liable. For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this ground and reverse. We remand for the trial court to decide whether the slide’s condition was open and obvious, and whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide after being notified was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P42] I. Standard of Review

[*P43] [HN1] A trial court is permitted to grant summary judgment only “if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2010). The trial court must view these documents and exhibits in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307, 315, 821 N.E.2d 269, 290 Ill. Dec. 218 (2004). We review a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novoOutboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 102, 607 N.E.2d 1204, 180 Ill. Dec. 691 (1992). De novo consideration means we perform the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564, 578, 948 N.E.2d 132, 350 Ill. Dec. 63 (2011).

[*P44] [HN2] “Summary judgment is a drastic measure and should only be granted if the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt.” Outboard Marine Corp., 154 Ill. 2d at 102. However, “[m]ere speculation, conjecture, or guess is insufficient [**14] to withstand summary judgment.” Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc., 309 Ill. App. 3d 313, 328, 722 N.E.2d 227, 242 Ill. Dec. 738 (1999). A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of proof. Nedzvekas v. Fung, 374 Ill. App. 3d 618, 624, 872 N.E.2d 431, 313 Ill. Dec. 448 (2007). The defendant may meet his burden of proof either by affirmatively showing that some element of the case must be resolved in his favor or by establishing “‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.'” Nedzvekas, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 624 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). In other words, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff’s complaint.

[*P45] “‘The purpose of summary judgment is not to try an issue of fact but *** to determine whether a triable issue of fact exists.'” Schrager v. North Community Bank, 328 Ill. App. 3d 696, 708, 767 N.E.2d 376, 262 Ill. Dec. 916 (2002) (quoting Luu v. Kim, 323 Ill. App. 3d 946, 952, 752 N.E.2d 547, 256 Ill. Dec. 667 (2001)). “‘To withstand a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party need not prove his case at this preliminary stage but must present some factual basis that would support his claim.'” Schrager, 328 Ill. App. 3d at 708 (quoting Luu, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 952). We may affirm on any basis appearing in the record, whether or not the trial court relied on that basis or its reasoning was correct. Ray Dancer, Inc. v. DMC Corp., 230 Ill. App. 3d 40, 50, 594 N.E.2d 1344, 171 Ill. Dec. 824 (1992).

[*P46] II. Intended User of Slide

[*P47] CPD argues that, since Cheneka was not the intended user of the slide, it cannot be liable for her injuries. [HN3] As a local public entity, CPD is entitled to the protection of the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (the Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. (West 2010)). [**15]

[*P48] In order for a municipality to have immunity under the Act, a duty must be owed under section 3-102 (745 ILCS 10/3-102 (West 2010)) for any of the subsequent immunity sections to apply. Swett v. Village of Algonquin, 169 Ill. App. 3d 78, 95, 523 N.E.2d 594, 119 Ill. Dec. 838 (1988). Section 3-102(a) states:

[HN4] “Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a local public entity has the duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for the use in the exercise of ordinary care of people whom the entity intended and permitted to use the property in a manner in which and at such times as it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used, and shall not be liable for injury unless it is proven that it has actual or constructive notice of the existence of such a condition that is not reasonably safe in reasonably adequate time prior to an injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against such condition.” (Emphasis added.) 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2010).

[*P49] Thus, [HN5] according to the Act, a municipality owes a duty of care only to those who are both intended and permitted users of municipal property. 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2010). Because “the Act ‘is in derogation of the common law,'” we must construe it strictly against the municipal defendant. Vaughn v. City of West Frankfort, 166 Ill. 2d 155, 158, 651 N.E.2d 1115, 209 Ill. Dec. 667 (1995) (quoting Curatola v. Village of Niles, 154 Ill. 2d 201, 208, 608 N.E.2d 882, 181 Ill. Dec. 631 (1993)). “[A]n intended user of property is, by definition, also a permitted user; [**16] a permitted user of property, however, is not necessarily an intended user.” Boub v. Township of Wayne, 183 Ill. 2d 520, 524, 702 N.E.2d 535, 234 Ill. Dec. 195 (1998).

[*P50] “[T]he duty of a municipality depends on whether the use of the property was a permitted and intended use. [Citation.] Whether a particular use of property was permitted and intended is determined by looking to the nature of the property itself. [Citation.]” (Emphasis omitted.) Vaughn, 166 Ill. 2d at 162-63. “Intent must be inferred from the circumstances.” Sisk v. Williamson County, 167 Ill. 2d 343, 351, 657 N.E.2d 903, 212 Ill. Dec. 558 (1995).

[*P51] Defendant contends that, as a 13-year-old, Cheneka was not the intended or permitted user of the slide at the park. CPD claims, first, that this park was intended only for children 12 and younger. Second, chapter 7, section B(3)(e), of the CPD Code states:

“Playgrounds Designated for Persons under Twelve Years of Age.

[HN6] No person the age of twelve years or older shall use playground equipment designed for persons under the age of twelve years.” Chicago Park District Code ch. 7, § B(3)(e) (amended July 28, 1992).

[HN7] The CPD Code has the same force as a municipal ordinance. Chicago Park District v. Canfield, 382 Ill. 218, 223-24, 47 N.E.2d 61 (1943). Defendant claims it is immune from liability, because the 13-year-old violated the CPD Code by allegedly using equipment “designed” for younger children.

[*P52] [HN8] To determine whether plaintiff was an intended user of property, we [**17] look to the property itself to determine its intended use. Wojdyla v. City of Park Ridge, 148 Ill. 2d 417, 426, 592 N.E.2d 1098, 170 Ill. Dec. 418, (1992).

[*P53] Defendant cites Montano v. City of Chicago, 308 Ill. App. 3d 618, 624, 720 N.E.2d 628, 242 Ill. Dec. 7 (1999), where this court ruled that the defendant city was not liable when an adult pedestrian, who was injured on the pavement in an alleyway, had been violating an ordinance governing the use of alleys. The court found that there is no duty owed to pedestrians on thoroughfares not intended for pedestrian traffic. Montano, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 625.

[*P54] In Prokes v. City of Chicago, 208 Ill. App. 3d 748, 750, 567 N.E.2d 592, 153 Ill. Dec. 634 (1991), this court found the defendant city not liable when an adult bicyclist had been injured on a sidewalk. The city had an ordinance stating, “‘No person twelve or more years of age shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk in any district ***.'” Prokes, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 749 (quoting Chicago Municipal Code § 27-296 (1984)).

[*P55] In both Prokes and Montanto, the adult plaintiffs were not found to be intended users of the premises on which they were injured because they had violated a Chicago ordinance. However, defendant does not cite a case where a child was charged with the responsibility of knowing municipal ordinances, without a sign or other notice.

[*P56] In addition, nothing in the record shows that even adult members of the public had any means of knowing that CPD had allegedly designated this particular park for a certain age group. [HN9] Publication [**18] of ordinances is necessary so that the public can be informed of the contents of ordinances. City of Rockford v. Suski, 90 Ill. App. 3d 681, 685, 413 N.E.2d 527, 46 Ill. Dec. 87 (1980). It is a long-established principle that members of the public must have a reasonable opportunity to be informed of an ordinance so that they may conform their conduct accordingly and avoid liability under the ordinance. Schott v. People, 89 Ill. 195, 197-98 (1878). While the CPD Code prohibited children age 12 and over from playing on playgrounds “designed” for children younger than 12, nothing in the CPD Code stated that this particular park was designated for children under age 12 or that this slide was designed for children under age 12. The CPD website for the park, attached to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, mentions no age range, only stating: “This park features a playground and swings and green space. It is an active community park.”

[*P57] There were also no signs on the playground or any other indications that the playground was designated or designed for children under 12 years old. Plaintiff states in her affidavit that the park did not have a sign designating the playground for younger children. Robert Rejman, CPD’s director of development and planning, admitted at his deposition that he did not [**19] know whether there was a sign posted. Nothing in the record shows that CPD took any measures to prevent children age 12 and older from using this park. Playgrounds are designed for children. What would prompt a 13-year-old child to observe a slide and think, “am I really the intended user of this slide?”

[*P58] CPD stated that plaintiff presented no case or legal authority to support the assumption that all community members are intended users of a park called a “community park.” However, [HN10] it is the defendant’s burden to prove that it is immune from liability. Bubb v. Springfield School District 186, 167 Ill. 2d 372, 377-78, 657 N.E.2d 887, 212 Ill. Dec. 542 (1995); Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 370, 799 N.E.2d 273, 278 Ill. Dec. 555 (2003). In addition, CPD has pointed to no legal authority claiming that the public generally is not allowed to use public parks.

[*P59] Plaintiff contends that CPD did not follow the administrative provisions in chapter 7, section C, of the CPD Code for designating the playground as solely for children under the age of 12 years old. However, we do not consider this issue, because [HN11] issues not raised in the trial court are waived and may not be considered for the first time on appeal. Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525, 536, 662 N.E.2d 1248, 215 Ill. Dec. 108 (1996). Nothing in plaintiff’s complaint or her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment argued that CPD failed to follow its own administrative procedures under [**20] chapter 7, section C, of the CPD Code.

[*P60] Defendant argues that placing signage is discretionary, and it has no duty to post its ordinances at every park. The CPD Code is available online; however, the Code does not state which parks have been designated for a certain age group. [HN12] An ordinance is invalid if a municipality cannot prove it was published (Suski, 90 Ill. App. 3d at 685), and here there is no showing that it was published.

[*P61] CONCLUSION

[*P62] We must reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment which was granted solely on the basis that a 13-year-old was not an intended user of the slide.

[*P63] First, the defendant does not cite a case where a child was charged with the responsibility of knowing municipal ordinances, without a sign or other notice, nor can we find such a case.

[*P64] Second, defendant failed to inform park users of any age, by any means, that this park and the slide were intended for children younger than age 12.

[*P65] For these reasons, we must reverse. We remand for the trial court to decide whether the slide’s condition was open and obvious, and whether CPD’s failure to repair the slide after being notified was willful and wanton conduct.

[*P66] Reversed and remanded.


When there is no proof that the problem created by the defendant caused the injury, there is no proximate causation, therefore no negligence

Skier whose bindings did not release and possibly were set to high, could not prove that if his bindings did release he would not have suffered his injury.

Mack v. Viking Ski Shop, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 130768; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 684

State: Illinois

Plaintiff: Matthew Mack

Defendant: Viking Ski Shop, Inc. & Salomon North America, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: defendant failed to make a reasonable inspection before selling the ski equipment to plaintiff, defendant failed to properly adjust the ski equipment, specifically the bindings, to plaintiff’s height, weight, and ski type.

Defendant Defenses: No proximate causation

Holding: for the defendants

Year: 2014

Remember there are four steps (in most states) to prove negligence.

·        Duty

·        Breach of the Duty

·        Injury

·        Proximate causation

Each of these points must be proven to hold a defendant negligent.

In this case, the plaintiff purchased skis, boots and bindings in Illinois before going skiing in Colorado. While skiing he fell suffering a knee injury, a tibial plateau fracture. The plaintiff’s bindings did not release during the fall. The plaintiff returned to Illinois and sued the shop that mounted his bindings and the binding manufacturer.

The plaintiff argued that the ski shop that mounted his bindings mounted them for a Type III skier, and he was a Type II skier. The ski industry has developed a skier identification program to determine a skier’s ability level. (See http://www.dinsetting.com/ for information on the different skier levels.) The better the skier the higher the skier identification on a scale of 1 to 3. A better skier has a higher DIN setting or the harder, more pressure needed, to release the ski boot from the binding.

The plaintiff hired an expert who testified that in his opinion, the binding DIN was too high. The defendant hired two experts who stated that if the DIN setting were too high, it still would not have mattered. The pressure needed to release the boot at either DIN setting, Skier Type II or Type III was greater than the pressure that would cause his injury.

The trial court agreed and dismissed the case based on motions of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The appellate court reiterated the requirements to win a negligence case. Illinois has adopted a three-step approach to proving negligence, basically combining steps 3 and 4 into one step.

In order to recover damages based upon a defendant’s alleged negligence, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty; (2) that the defendant breached the duty; and (3) that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court then looked at the requirements to prove proximate cause. Proximate cause has a fact component and a legal component. The factual component is determined by a “but for” test. “Cause, in fact, is established if the occurrence would not have happened “but for” the conduct of the defendant.”

Legal cause is based on foreseeability.

Legal cause, by contrast, is largely a question of foreseeability, and the relevant inquiry is whether the injury is of a type that a reasonable person would see as a likely result of his or her conduct. Furthermore, proximate cause must be established to a reasonable certainty and may not be based upon mere speculation, guess, surmise or conjecture.

Foreseeability is a difficult legal definition to the non-legal definition can suffice to understand the issues. Could the defendant have thought about the chances of something happening and was that more than mere speculation. Was it something that more than mere speculation could have brought to the speculation of the defendant.

Here the facts still fell below foreseeable. Even if the defendant was negligent and set the bindings incorrectly, the injury would have still occurred. Consequently, the cause, bindings set incorrectly, was not proximate to the injury.

In addition, even if we take Leffe’s testimony as true that defendants incorrectly set plaintiff’s bindings too high for his skier preference, plaintiff still fails to provide substantial evidence that if his bindings were at a lower setting his injury would not have occurred.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the case.

So Now What?

This case was one because the defense team understood the factual and legal issues of the case and based on facts alone, proved the defendant was not liable. Having an attorney willing to take the time to understand and investigate all of the issues and an insurance company willing to pay for that time will allow the defendant in an outdoor recreation case to win 99% of the time.

Here the defense team kept asking questions until they fully understood the issues. The pressure needed to create a tibial plateau fracture was less than the binding release setting.

Hire a good attorney and take the time to educate your attorney in the facts of your case. Take them down the river, up the mountain or around the mountain on a mountain bike, so they understand all aspects of your business, what the plaintiff experienced and the particulars of your case.

Spend the money to equipment your attorney with a complete set of the equipment at issue in the case. Make sure they understand a forward stroke, a munter hitch and an ascender, or any other equipment at issue in the case. Have them play with the equipment, putting on the harness, releasing a boot from a binding or attaching a PFD until they understand all facets of the equipment.

Then your lawyer can investigate the case to use the best defense available for you.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2014 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law       Rec-law@recreation-law.com              James H. Moss               #Authorrank

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Tibial Plateau Fracture, Ski Binding, Binding Release Setting, DIN, Skiing, Ski, Viking Ski Shop, Inc.,