open and obvious danger rule in Illinois

2016Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 142 . ¶ 16 An exception to the open and obvious danger rule exists when one " 'has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that [she] will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what [she] has discovered, or fail to protect [herself] against it.' " Id. at 149-50 quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A, cmt f, at 220 (1965).

2016Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 142 . ¶ 16 An exception to the open and obvious danger rule exists when one " 'has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that [she] will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what [she] has discovered, or fail to protect [herself] against it.' " Id. at 149-50 quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A, cmt f, at 220 (1965).

2017See id. at 485 ; accord Bucheleres, 171 Ill. 2d at 448 (“people are expected to appreciate and avoid obvious risks”). 9 We note that section 343A(1) of the Restatement indicates by its use of the language, “unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness,” there are two limited exceptions to the open and obvious danger rule, which may apply under certain circumstances when the possessor of land has reason to anticipate or expect that an injury will occur to an invitee, despite the open and obvious nature of the danger.

1998Although a premises owner is not ordinarily hable for injuries caused by an “open and obvious” hazard (Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435, 447-48 (1996)), the majority holds that the “deliberate encounter” exception to the open and obvious danger doctrine applies because Kemlite “could reasonably foresee an ‘economic compulsion’ [citation] imposed on the roll-off drivers to perform the work they were hired to do.” 185 Ill. 2d at 395.

1998Although a premises owner is not ordinarily liable for injuries caused by an "open and obvious" hazard ( Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill.2d 435, 447-48 , 216 Ill.Dec. 568 , 665 N.E.2d 826 (1996)), the majority holds that the "deliberate encounter" exception to the open and obvious danger doctrine applies because Kemlite "could reasonably foresee an `economic compulsion' [citation] imposed on the roll-off drivers to perform the work they were hired to do." 185 Ill.2d at 395 , 235 Ill.Dec. at 894 , 706 N.E.2d at 449 .

1998Although a premises owner is not ordinarily liable for injuries caused by an "open and obvious" hazard ( Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill.2d 435, 447-48 , 216 Ill.Dec. 568 , 665 N.E.2d 826 (1996)), the majority holds that the "deliberate encounter" exception to the open and obvious danger doctrine applies because Kemlite "could reasonably foresee an `economic compulsion' [citation] imposed on the roll-off drivers to perform the work they were hired to do." 185 Ill.2d at 395 , 235 Ill.Dec. at 894 , 706 N.E.2d at 449 .

2008See, e.g., Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 153 , 554 N.E.2d 223, 233 (1990) (finding the risk of harm foreseeable where it is foreseeable that an adult plaintiff might be too distracted to notice an otherwise open and obvious danger); LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380, 392 , 706 N.E.2d 441, 448 (1998) (finding it foreseeable that an adult plaintiff will deliberately encounter an open and obvious danger due to economic necessity); see also Sollami, 201 Ill. 2d at 16 , 772 N.E.2d at 224 (specifically stating that the deliberate-encounter exception may be applicable in circumstances

2008See, e.g., Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 153 , 554 N.E.2d 223, 233 (1990) (finding the risk of harm foreseeable where it is foreseeable that an adult plaintiff might be too distracted to notice an otherwise open and obvious danger); LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380, 392 , 706 N.E.2d 441, 448 (1998) (finding it foreseeable that an adult plaintiff will deliberately encounter an open and obvious danger due to economic necessity); see also Sollami, 201 Ill. 2d at 16 , 772 N.E.2d at 224 (specifically stating that the deliberate-encounter exception may be applicable in circumstances

2003See Wortel , 331 Ill.

2003See Wortel, 331 Ill.

2021Bruns, 2014 IL 116998, ¶ 19 (citing Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435, 456-57 (1996)); accord Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc., 405 Ill.

2021Bruns, 2014 IL 116998, ¶ 19 ; see also Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 147-148 .

2021Bruns, 2014 IL 116998, ¶ 19 (citing Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435, 456-57 (1996)); accord Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc., 405 Ill.

2017See id. at 485 ; accord Bucheleres, 171 Ill. 2d at 448 (“people are expected to appreciate and avoid obvious risks”). 9 We note that section 343A(1) of the Restatement indicates by its use of the language, “unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness,” there are two limited exceptions to the open and obvious danger rule, which may apply under certain circumstances when the possessor of land has reason to anticipate or expect that an injury will occur to an invitee, despite the open and obvious nature of the danger.

2010See Buerkett, 384 Ill.App.3d at 422 , 323 Ill.Dec. 430 , 893 N.E.2d at 709 .

2010Restatement (Second) Torts § 343A, Comment f (1965); Ward, 136 Ill.2d at 148-57 , 143 Ill.Dec. 288 , 554 N.E.2d at 230-34 ; LaFever, 185 Ill.2d at 391 , 235 Ill.Dec. 886 , 706 N.E.2d at 448 ; True, 316 Ill.App.3d at 679-80 , 250 Ill.Dec. 51 , 737 N.E.2d at 676 ; Buerkett, 384 Ill.App.3d at 423-24 , 323 Ill.Dec. 430 , 893 N.E.2d at 710 .

2010See Buerkett, 384 Ill.App.3d at 422 , 323 Ill.Dec. 430 , 893 N.E.2d at 709 .

2010See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A, Comment f (1965); Ward, 136 Ill.2d at 148-50 , 143 Ill.Dec. 288 , 554 N.E.2d at 230-31 ; LaFever, 185 Ill.2d at 391 , 235 Ill.Dec. 886 , 706 N.E.2d at 448 ; True, 316 Ill.App.3d at 679-80 , 250 Ill.Dec. 51 , 737 N.E.2d at 676 ; Buerkett, 384 Ill.App.3d at 423-24 , 323 Ill.