OTTAWA, Ill. (Legal Newsline) - A truck stop was properly dismissed from a lawsuit by a man who slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk because it had no duty to keep the walk entirely clear of ice, an Illinois appeals court ruled. Only if employees tried to clear the walk and created an “unnatural accumulation” of snow and ice would the station be liable, the court said.
Dan Gore sued Pilot Travel Centers after slipping on ice at the company’s Gilman, Ill., station in December 2016. Gore testified the parking lot was wet but not icy and the sidewalk looked the same, but when he stepped on it he slipped and fell.
Pilot employees said they shoveled and salted the walk as needed, including the day of the accident. Pilot also hired an outside contractor to plow the parking lot but Pilot employees were in charge of maintaining the sidewalks, according to company policy.
Gore argued Pilot was negligent for failing to clear the sidewalk of ice and because its employees violated company policy. The trial court granted Pilot summary judgment, ruling the company the company had no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice, there was no evidence the employees created unnatural accumulations, and Pilot couldn’t be held liable for violating its own policies.
The Illinois Third District Appellate Court agreed, ruling for Pilot on all points in a Dec. 9 decision.
Illinois law generally doesn’t hold defendants liable for natural accumulations of snow and ice, the appeals court observed. Gore argued Pilot was liable under the “voluntary undertaking theory,” where companies can be liable if they voluntarily try to clear the sidewalk of snow and ice. The appeals court said Gore failed to back up his claim with evidence the employees made things worse.
“Defendant’s voluntary ice and snow removal efforts did not impose a duty on defendant to ensure that its sidewalks were completely clear of all ice,” the court ruled. “Defendant only had the duty not to increase the risk of harm to its customers by creating an unnatural accumulation of ice on its property.”
The court also ruled that violating internal rules doesn’t “constitute evidence of a defendant’s negligence or failure to use reasonable care.”