Illinois Supreme Court Finds Building Owners Must Protect Their Customers From The Negligence Of Others... Even Bad Drivers
October, 2006
In a split decision, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that a premises owner has a duty to protect its invitees from the negligence of third persons and that the imposition of this duty does not require notice of a prior, similar incident of negligent third-party conduct. Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 2006 WL 1703488. This is a substantial change in the law with far reaching implications for premises liability cases.
Facts
Decedent was eating inside a Burger King restaurant when the driver of a car attempting to back out of the parking lot lost control of the vehicle, hit the sidewalk next to the restaurant, became airborne and crashed through the window killing the decedent. His estate sued Burger King, the franchisee, and the driver of the car. Plaintiff alleged that Burger King and its franchisee failed to exercise due care in the design and construction of the restaurant and that this was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries and death. The trial court granted Burger King’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action because Burger King had no duty to protect decedent from this particular injury. The appellate court reversed, finding that the allegations of the complaint suggested precautions, such as modifications to the restaurant’s building and parking lot designs, that may fall within the duty of reasonable care a premises owner owes to its invitees.
Analysis
A majority of the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, finding that “[p]laces to which the general public are invited might indeed anticipate, either from common experience or known fact, that places of general public resort are also places where what men can do, they might. One who invites all may reasonably expect that all might not behave, and bears responsibility for injury that follows the absence of reasonable precaution against that common expectation.” Based on the allegations of the complaint, the majority concluded that “the duty of care that a business invitor owes to invitees to protect them against the unreasonable risk of physical harm is clearly applicable to this case. The complaint alleges that while the decedent was a customer at a restaurant owned and operated by defendants, he was injured by the negligent act of a third person - namely, Fritz’s act of driving her car into the restaurant. Defendants’ business, a restaurant, is undoubtedly of such a nature that it places defendants in a special relationship with their customers, as it is an establishment open to the general public for business purposes.”
The majority further found that this duty of care is imposed upon premises owners regardless of whether similar specific incidents have occurred in the past, reasoning that all accidents involving automobiles are reasonably foreseeable: “[I]t is reasonably foreseeable that, given the pervasiveness of automobiles, roadways, and parking lots, that business invitees will, from time to time, be placed at risk by automobile-related accidents. *** [W]hat is required to be foreseeable is the general character of the event or harm *** not its precise nature or manner of occurrence.”
Learning Point:
The dissent opined that “the majority’s holding is exceptionally broad and has the potential to alter substantially the function and appearance of every city in the state.” The dissent concluded that if there is an affirmative duty to protect a business invitee from an out-of-control vehicle, then such a duty exists for every business which owns a building that abuts a road or parking lot.
As a recent Chicago Tribune article noted, the construction of buildings is presently in an “anxious age.” Blair Kaiman, “Architecture in an Anxious Age”, Chicago Tribune, September 10, 2006, Sec. 1 at 4. Now, following the Marshall opinion, Illinois business owners not only have to deal with the anxiety of terrorism but also must design and build safer buildings to protect their customers from the negligence of third parties. By shifting the burden to anticipate these events to the business owner, the question becomes this: has the court made all landowners insurers of their customers’ safety? Or is the court acknowledging what has become a more prevailing attitude, i.e., that business owners cannot avoid owing a duty to the very customers they invite into their stores, given the number of automobiles and drivers on the road, and should prepare for the possibility of an accident no matter how remote? In either event, Illinois business owners must beware…if you invite the public onto your premises, you may be responsible for the negligent conduct of third parties. Proper design and construction of the building should take into account the possibility of bad drivers. Business owners will have to “think outside the box” to make sure that the once the doors are open, that it is safe both inside and outside of the business.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2006v3) 2006 Volume 3 Table of Contents
