common-law negligence claim in Illinois

2019See Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404, 415 (2008) (the elements of a wrongful death claim are identical to those of a common-law negligence claim); Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 525 (1987). ¶ 34 The proximate cause element is a factual question for the jury to decide and has two components: cause in fact and legal cause.

2018See Williams v. Manchester , 228 Ill. 2d 404 , 415, 320 Ill.Dec. 784 , 888 N.E.2d 1 (2008) (the elements of a wrongful death claim are identical to those of a common-law negligence claim); Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center , 117 Ill. 2d 507 , 525, 111 Ill.Dec. 944 , 513 N.E.2d 387 (1987). ¶ 34 The proximate cause element is a factual question for the jury to decide and has two components: cause in fact and legal cause.

2025See Columbus, 536 U.S. at 438 ; Haage, 2021 IL 125918, ¶ 72 .

2025Columbus, 536 U.S. at 438 ; Haage, 2021 IL 125918, ¶ 72 .

2019See Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404, 415 (2008) (the elements of a wrongful death claim are identical to those of a common-law negligence claim); Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 525 (1987). ¶ 34 The proximate cause element is a factual question for the jury to decide and has two components: cause in fact and legal cause.

2018See Williams v. Manchester , 228 Ill. 2d 404 , 415, 320 Ill.Dec. 784 , 888 N.E.2d 1 (2008) (the elements of a wrongful death claim are identical to those of a common-law negligence claim); Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center , 117 Ill. 2d 507 , 525, 111 Ill.Dec. 944 , 513 N.E.2d 387 (1987). ¶ 34 The proximate cause element is a factual question for the jury to decide and has two components: cause in fact and legal cause.

2026Teutonico v. Hellios, 348 Ill.

2022See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Welbourne, 2017 IL App (3d) 160231, ¶ 16 , 85 N.E.3d 561 (“Under negligence law, the standard of care required of a defendant in an ordinary negligence case is to act as an ordinarily careful person or reasonably prudent person would act under similar circumstances.”). ¶ 58 On the other hand, section 305.20 of Title 83, at issue in this case, adopts the NESC’s Rule 232, which provides an array of tables for utility companies to use to determine the proper height at which a specific powerline needs to be maintained dependent upon atmospheric conditions, loc

2014Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 97 (1995). 4 It further terminated the Forest Preserve District of Kane County as a respondent in discovery. -6- ¶ 20 To prevail on a common-law negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff.

2014Lucas, 168 Ill.

2014The court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence claim because "plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence to raise an issue of fact as to defendant [premises owner]'s knowledge of the dog's alleged dangerousness." Goennenwein, 296 Ill.

2014Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215, 225 (2010).