ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 130

740 ILCS 130/2

The distinction under the common law between invitees and licensees as to the duty owed by an owner or occupier of any premises to such entrants is abolished

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 130/2) (from Ch. 80, par. 302)
    (Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 2. The distinction under the common law between invitees and licensees as to the duty owed by an owner or occupier of any premises to such entrants is abolished.
    The duty owed to such entrants is that of reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises or acts done or omitted on them. The duty of reasonable care under the circumstances which an owner or occupier of land owes to such entrants does not include any of the following: a duty to warn of or otherwise take reasonable steps to protect such entrants from conditions on the premises that are known to the entrant, are open and obvious, or can reasonably be expected to be discovered by the entrant; a duty to warn of latent defects or dangers or defects or dangers unknown to the owner or occupier of the premises; a duty to warn such entrants of any dangers resulting from misuse by the entrants of the premises or anything affixed to or located on the premises; or a duty to protect such entrants from their own misuse of the premises or anything affixed to or located on the premises.
    This amendatory Act of 1995 applies to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
 
    (Text of Section WITHOUT the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 2. The distinction under the common law between invitees and licensees as to the duty owed by an owner or occupier of any premises to such entrants is abolished.
    The duty owed to such entrants is that of reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises or acts done or omitted on them.
(Source: P.A. 83-1398.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consolidated Communications, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consolidated Communications, Inc. (1995) ill · cites it 4× “September 12, 1984 (amending 740 ILCS 130/2 (Premises Liability Act) (duty of reasonable care does not include a duty to warn or to take reasonable steps to protect from conditions on the premises that are open and obvious).”
Sollami v. Eaton (2002) ill · cites it 2× “740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1994); Ward v. K mart Corp.”
Randich v. Pirtano Const. Co., Inc. (2004) illappct · cites it 4× “This is in contrast to other statutes like section 2 of the Premises Liability Act (740 ILCS 130/2 (West 2002)), which expressly abolished the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees.”
Grant v. South Roxana Dad's Club (2008) illappct · cites it 4× “" 740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1994). The defendant argues that any duty it might have owed Zachary was negated by the open and obvious nature of the risk.”
Peterson v. Aldi, Inc. (1997) illappct · cites it 6× “The circuit court of Du Page County ruled that under section 2 of the Premises Liability Act (Act) (740 ILCS 130/2 (West Supp.1995)), as amended effective March 9, 1995, defendant was entitled to summary judgment.”
Kotecki v. Walsh Construction Co. (2002) illappct · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 (1965)) and section 2 of the Premises Liability Act (the Act) (740 ILCS 130/2 (West 2000)) established a duty of…”
Kleiber v. Freeport Farm and Fleet, Inc. (2010) illappct · cites it 2× “2d 46, 51 (2002), quoting 740 ILCS 130/2 (West 2000). In a situation where a plaintiff alleges that an injury was caused by a condition on the defendant's property, and the plaintiff *647 was an invitee on the property, whether the injury is reasonably foreseeable is determined…”
Buchaklian v. Lake County Family Young Men's Christian Ass'n (2000) illappct · cites it 2× “March 9, 1995 (amending 740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1994))). That amendment added a second paragraph to section 2 of the Premises Liability Act that included the following pertinent language: “The duty of reasonable care under the circumstances which an owner or occupier of land owes…”
Menough v. Woodfield Gardens (1998) illappct · cites it 4× “302 (now 740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1996)). Whether one person owes another a duty of reasonable care under a particular set of circumstances is an issue of law for the court.”
Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad (1996) ill “” 740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1994). Our analysis in this case is only concerned, however, with the duty owed by a landowner to a trespasser.”
Benamon v. Soo Line Railroad (1997) illappct · cites it 2× “” 740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1992). As to trespassers, however, the Premises Liability Act reaffirmed the general common law rule that no duty of reasonable care is owed a trespasser except to refrain from wantonly or willfully injuring him.”
Clifford v. Wharton Business Group, L.L.C. (2004) illappct “3 Until recently, the duty of care was imposed by the Premises Liability Act (740 ILCS 130/2 (West 1996)) on owners or occupiers of land to exercise “reasonable care under the circumstances” toward persons lawfully on the property.”
Show all 71 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.