ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Illinois Lawyer Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: Illinois Lawyer Blog

ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT CLARIFIES "OPEN AND OBVIOUS" IN PARKING GARAGE CASE

By Mark P. Loftus, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

201175_parking_garage.jpg


Just noticed an interesting premises liability decisision handed down in November by the Illinois Appellate Court, Alqadhi v. Standard Parking. The plaintiff tripped and fell over raised concrete while leaving a parking garage. She suffered injuries to her knees. She alleged that the defendants failed to mark a 3/4 inch rise in concrete leading to a wheelchair-accessible ramp. Defendants moved to have the case tossed, arguing in part that the condition was open and obvious. In responding to the motion, plaintiff submitted the testimony of an expert who testified that the due to a failure to paint the area yellow, the ramp appeared flat. Additionally, the plaintiff testified the lighting was poor. The trial court however, agreed with the defense and tossed the case, noting the the raised area was open and obvious. The plainiff ultimately appealed.

The Appellate Court, in reviewing the "open and obvious doctrine" noted that where there is no dispute about the physical nature of the condition, the issue of whether it is open and obvious is one for the court. But, where a dispute exists about the physical nature of the defect, such as visibility, then a factual dispute exists and should be resolved by a jury.

The Appellate Court reversed, noting that the plaintiff testified the lighting was poor and that due to the absence of any marking the change in elevation appeared flat. Additionally, the Appellate Court noted the expert's testimony that the lack of paint "disguised" the change in elevation. Consequently, the court found that there was a dispute abou the physical nature of the condition.

Additionally, the Court didn't buy the defense argument that the defect was "de minimus" or too tiny to be actionable. The Appellate Court noted that even a minor defect may be actionable where there are aggravating factors, such as heavy traffic or distractions.

Full post as published by Illinois Lawyer Blog on February 14, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0218 secs (new cache)