first two factors in Illinois

2015Id. ¶ 35 (citing Bucheleres, 171 Ill. 2d at 447-48 (reasonable foreseeability), and Sollami, 201 Ill. 2d at 17 (likelihood)). ¶ 45 Having disposed of the first two factors as was to be expected in an open-and-obvious case with no exception, the court turned to the remaining two factors.

2014In Lerma, which defendants urge is controlling here and which plaintiff argues is flawed for failing to conduct the traditional duty analysis, 6 two 6 But see Sollami, 201 Ill. 2d at 15, 17 (holding that the “open and obvious” doctrine implicates only the first two factors of the traditional duty analysis: likelihood and reasonable foreseeability of injury). -9- children entered a river near a dam and drowned downstream of the dam while attempting to rescue another child who had been playing in the river.

2017“Where an exception to the open and obvious rule applies, the outcome of the duty analysis with respect to the first two factors is ‘reversed.’ ” Id. (quoting Belluomini v. Stratford Green Condominium Ass’n, 346 Ill.

2017“Where an exception to the open and obvious rule applies, the outcome of the duty analysis with respect to the first two factors is ‘reversed.’ ” Id. (quoting Belluomini v. Stratford Green Condominium Ass’n, 346 Ill.

2022LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 389 ; Bucheleres, 171 Ill. 2d at 456 . ¶ 47 Where the danger is open and obvious, the first two factors of the duty analysis— the foreseeability and likelihood of injury—weigh against the imposition of a duty.

2020LaFever, 185 Ill. 2d at 389 ; Bucheleres, 171 Ill. 2d at 456 . ¶ 22 The first two factors carry little weight.

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

2006Even assuming the foreseeability-of-the-injury factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty on the defendant, “foreseeability alone provides an inadequate foundation upon which to base the existence of a legal duty.” Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 140 , 554 N.E.2d 223, 226 (1990), citing Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 525 , 513 N.E.2d 387, 396 (1987).

2017Union Cemetery Ass’n, 414 Ill. at 34 (the Care Act was enacted to remedy the evils relating to possible frauds or mismanagement in the handling of care funds and in the advertising and sales of services to which the funds for care were to be devoted).

2016Union Cemetery Ass'n of the City of Lincoln, 414 Ill. at 34 (the Care Act was enacted to remedy the evils relating to possible frauds or mismanagement in the handling of care funds and in the advertising and sales of services to which the funds for care were to be devoted).

2015See G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 54-55 . ¶ 62 Addressing the first two factors together, the record shows that defendant was 15 years old and in ninth grade when he was questioned by police.

2014See G.O., 191 Ill. 2d at 54-55 . ¶ 62 Addressing the first two factors together, the record shows that defendant was 15 years old and in ninth grade when he was questioned by police.

2020“This totality-of-the-circumstances approach allows trial courts to give effect to the strong public policy favoring the peaceful settling of claims, and at the same time allows trial courts to be on guard for any evidence of unfair dealing, collusion, or wrongful conduct by the settling parties.” Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 185, 191 (2001).

2020“This totality-of-the-circumstances approach allows trial courts to give effect to the strong public policy favoring the peaceful settlement of claims, and at the same time allows trial courts to be on guard for any evidence of unfair dealing, collusion, or wrongful conduct by the settling parties.” Dubina v. Mesirow Realty Development, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 185, 191 (2001).

2020People v. Quiroz, 257 Ill.

2019The first two factors are considered to be the “most important.” People v. Quiroz, 257 Ill.

2017Greenspon’s Son Pipe Corp., 381 Ill. 615, 619-20 (1943)). ¶ 19 The first two factors suggest that the tower is lienable.

2016Greenspon’s Son Pipe Corp., 381 Ill. 615, 619-20 (1943)). ¶ 19 The first two factors suggest that the tower is lienable.

2011See Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Filan, 216 Ill.2d 653, 664 , 297 Ill.Dec. 471 , 837 N.E.2d 922 (2005) (waiver is an admonition to the parties, not a limitation on the court's jurisdiction). ¶ 27 The open and obvious doctrine addresses the first two factors of the traditional duty analysis: the likelihood and reasonable foreseeability of the injury.

2011See Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Filan, 216 Ill.2d 653, 664 , 297 Ill.Dec. 471 , 837 N.E.2d 922 (2005) (waiver is an admonition to the parties, not a limitation on the court's jurisdiction). ¶ 27 The open and obvious doctrine addresses the first two factors of the traditional duty analysis: the likelihood and reasonable foreseeability of the injury.

2007Singleton, 278 Ill.

2007Singleton, 278 Ill.

2006Even assuming the foreseeability-of-the-injury factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty on the defendant, “foreseeability alone provides an inadequate foundation upon which to base the existence of a legal duty.” Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 140 , 554 N.E.2d 223, 226 (1990), citing Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 525 , 513 N.E.2d 387, 396 (1987).

2006Even assuming the foreseeability-of-the-injury factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty on the defendant, “foreseeability alone provides an inadequate foundation upon which to base the existence of a legal duty.” Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 140 , 554 N.E.2d 223, 226 (1990), citing Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 525 , 513 N.E.2d 387, 396 (1987).

2005Because the first two factors tend to restate the interdependence involved in parallel pricing, the most important evidence will generally involve the third factor, noneconomic evidence of an " 'actual, manifest agreement not to compete.' " In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation , 385 F.3d at 360-61 , quoting In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation , 295 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2002) .

2005Because the first two factors tend to restate the interdependence involved in parallel pricing, the most important evidence will generally involve the third factor, noneconomic evidence of an “ ‘actual, manifest agreement not to compete.’ ” In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, 385 F.3d at 360-61 , quoting In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 295 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2002).

2004See Knecht , 219 Ill.

2004See Knecht, 219 Ill.

2021In other words, where a condition is open and obvious and no exception applies, the first two factors of the four-factor test for the existence of a legal duty (the reasonable foreseeability of the injury and the likelihood of the injury) establish the absence of a duty, and the last two factors (the - 19 - 2021 IL App (2d) 200660-U magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant), “ ‘however strongly they militated in favor of a duty, cannot outweigh the first two factors.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 18 (quoting Bujnowsk

2021No published premises-liability negligence case that we have found held both (1) that the open-and-obvious rule applied without exception and (2) that the defendant nonetheless owed the plaintiff a duty.” Id. ¶ 57 Here, plaintiff does not argue that the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of placing that burden on Realington outweigh the first two factors.

2026App. 3d 801, 810 (2004); see also People v. Sommerville, 193 Ill.

2026C.L.’s Statements to Officer Lohmeyer ¶ 51 In support of his argument that C.L.’s statements to Officer Lohmeyer were not excited utterances, defendant points to the following three factors: (1) Officer Lohmeyer was not the first person she saw or spoke to after the occurrence, (2) the statements were made in response to his questioning, and (3) C.L. “had approximately 16 minutes to speak with Schmitt before she would have been able to speak to [Officer] Lohmeyer, giving her time to reflect upon what had occurred.” - 11 - ¶ 52 Initially, we note that in support of the first two factors identif