Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Illinois Lawyer Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation
: Illinois Lawyer BlogILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT CLARIFIES "OPEN AND OBVIOUS" IN PARKING GARAGE CASE
By Mark P. Loftus, Esq.

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).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Nationwide Recall Of All Lots Of Tylenol Arthritis Pain 100 Count With Ez-Open Cap
Tylenol Arthritis Pain 100 Count With Ez-Open Cap All Lots Recalled Nationally
Illinois Ground Beef Recalled
due to Possible E. coli Contamination
Illinois Residents
Exposed to Potentially Carcinogenic Drinking Water
University of Illinois Medical Center
Potential $14 Million in Malpractice Settlements
Wegmans Food Market
alleging the retailer revealed too much information on their credit and debit card receipts, violating the FACTA law, and leaving customers open to identity theft
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

Injury lawsuit filed after car plunges 13 feet
Shoplifter dies after fall from parking garage www.privateofficer.com
Man leaps off casino parking garage, in critical condition www.privateofficer.com
Brief-Writing Tips for the Illinois Appellate Court
CA11: Open garage facing street was not curtilage









