ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 130

740 ILCS 130/3

Nothing herein affects the law as regards the trespassing child entrant

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 130/3) (from Ch. 80, par. 303)
    (Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held unconstitutional)
    Sec. 3. Nothing herein affects the law as regards the trespassing child entrant. An owner or occupier of land owes no duty of care to an adult trespasser other than to refrain from willful and wanton conduct that would endanger the safety of a known trespasser on the property from a condition of the property or an activity conducted by the owner or occupier on the property.
    This amendatory Act of 1995 applies only 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. 3. Nothing herein affects the law as regards any category of trespasser, including the trespassing child entrant.
(Source: P.A. 83-1398.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · 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 2× “2d 836 ; see also 740 ILCS 130/3 (West 1992) (Premises Liability Act).”
Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad (1996) ill “Landowners’ Duty to Trespassers Although the Premises Liability Act abolished the common law distinction between the duties owed by a landowner to an invitee and a licensee, the Act expressly retained the distinction between the duties owed to those lawfully on the premises…”
Benamon v. Soo Line Railroad (1997) illappct “(West 1992)) adopted in Illinois in 1984 abolished the common law distinctions of invitee and licensee providing, instead, that the duty owed to entrants is that of "reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises or acts done or omitted on them.”
Ludwig v. B&R Corp. of America, Inc. (2023) illappct “¶ 20 Section 3 of the Premises Liability Act provides, in pertinent part: “An owner or occupier of land owes no duty of care to an adult trespasser other than to refrain from willful and wanton conduct that would endanger the safety of a known trespasser on the property from a…”
Benamon v. Soo Line R.R. Co. (1997) illappct “(West 1992)) adopted in Illinois in 1984 abolished the common law distinctions of invitee and licensee providing, instead, that the duty owed to entrants is that of "reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises or acts done or omitted on them.”
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.