Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc.green2 sentences2002The former example set forth in the Restatement has come to be known as the “distraction exception” to the obvious risk principle and the latter example is known as the “deliberate encounter exception.” Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc., 317 Ill. 2002The former example set forth in the Restatement has come to be known as the “distraction exception” to the obvious risk principle and the latter example is known as the “deliberate encounter exception.” Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc. , 317 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Sollami v. Eatongreen1 sentence2004The former example set forth in the Restatement has come to be known as the “distraction exception” to the obvious risk principle and the latter example is known as the “deliberate encounter exception.” Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1, 15 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. K Mart Corp.
green
2 sentences1992In addressing the obvious risk principle, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a rule consistent with an owner’s general duty of reasonable care “recognizes that the ‘obviousness’ of a condition or the fact that the injured party may have been in some sense ‘aware’ of it may not always serve as adequate warning of the condition and of the consequences of encountering it” (Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 148-49 , 554 N.E.2d 223 .) If the plaintiff “was also guilty of negligence contributing to his injury, then that is a proper consideration under comparative negligence principles 1992In addressing the obvious risk principle, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a rule consistent with an owner’s general duty of reasonable care “recognizes that the ‘obviousness’ of a condition or the fact that the injured party may have been in some sense ‘aware’ of it may not always serve as adequate warning of the condition and of the consequences of encountering it” (Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 148-49 , 554 N.E.2d 223 .) If the plaintiff “was also guilty of negligence contributing to his injury, then that is a proper consideration under comparative negligence principles | 3 | 1991–1992 |
Cope v. Doe
green
2 sentences1993(Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill. 2d at 286 .) The rationale for the obvious risk rule is that “since children are expected to avoid dangers which are obvious, there is no reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. 1987In Cope v. Doe (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 278, 286 , the court observed that the rationale for the obvious risk rule is that “since children are expected to avoid dangers which are obvious, there is no reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. | 2 | 1987–1993 |
OLD SECOND NAT'L BANK OF AURORA v. Aurora Township
green
1 sentence1993The law then is that foreseeability of harm to the child is the test for assessing liability; but there can be no recovery for injuries caused by a danger found to be obvious.” Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill. 2d at 286 ; Old Second National Bank v. Aurora Township (1987), 156 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Weber v. Village of Carol Stream
green
1 sentence1987The law then is that foreseeability of harm to the child is the test for assessing liability; but there can be no recovery for injuries caused by a danger found to be obvious.” In comparison with cases in which static, ice-covered, and partially ice-covered bodies of water have been found to present obvious risks (Cope v. Doe (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 278 ; Weber v. Village of Carol Stream (1984), 129 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.