Find Legal Information

No. 2--03--0887

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Charles J. McLean, Sr., and Linda McLean, appeal from the trial court's orderdismissing their complaint against defendant, Rockford Country Club, pursuant to section 2--615 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West 2002)). In their complaint asamended, plaintiffs sought to recover damages for injuries sustained when Charles was struck by afalling icicle near the entrance of defendant's premises. The trial court dismissed the action afterfinding that recovery was precluded under the natural accumulation rule, which provides that aproperty owner has no duty to remove snow or ice that accumulates naturally on its premises. SeeBloom v. Bistro Restaurant, Ltd. Partnership, 304 Ill. App. 3d 707, 710 (1999). On appeal, plaintiffscontend that the natural accumulation rule does not extinguish a property owner's common-law dutyto provide a reasonable means of ingress to and egress from its place of business. We affirm in part,reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

In their third amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, on December 16, 2000, Charles wasdefendant's business invitee and was walking under the edge of an overhanging roof near the frontentrance of defendant's premises. Plaintiffs alleged that, as Charles was walking in this area, he wasstruck on the head, neck, and shoulder by an "extremely large and heavy icicle" that broke off of theoverhang. The complaint alleged that Charles sustained numerous injuries as a result of the incident,including head lacerations, nerve impingement of his left shoulder and neck, clawing of his left handwith motor deficit, hand numbness, and several bulging cervical discs in his back. Count I of thecomplaint sought damages for Charles's injuries; count II sought damages for loss of consortium byCharles's wife, Linda.

Both counts I and II contained the same allegations of negligence against defendant. Thecounts alleged that defendant negligently permitted large and heavy icicles to hang from the edge ofthe roof overhanging the front entrance of the premises where business invitees were required towalk, knowing "for a long time prior to this occurrence" that such icicles created a dangerous andhazardous condition for patrons entering and exiting the building. Plaintiffs also alleged thatdefendant was negligent in failing to knock down or otherwise remove the icicles; in failing to warnits business invitees of the presence of the icicles; in failing to prevent the formation of the icicles; andin failing to otherwise exercise ordinary care in their control and maintenance of the building. Theseallegations were contained in subparagraphs 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(l), 7(m), and 7(n) of counts I andII. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant failed to correct several defective building conditions,which caused an unnatural accumulation of water to overflow the building's eaves and gutters,resulting in the formation of numerous large and heavy icicles. The allegedly defective buildingconditions included: an improper roof design, which included an improper pitch and slope of theoverhang roof; improperly hung and sized gutters and downspouts; an inadequate number ofdownspouts for the overhang roof; and improper drainage of the overhang roof. Plaintiffs allegedthat defendant failed to correct these defective conditions or take other remedial action, such as theinstallation of heated cables or ice diverters in the gutters on the overhang roof. These allegationswere contained in subparagraphs 7(e) through 7(k) of counts I and II. Finally, in subparagraph 7(o)of counts I and II, plaintiffs alleged that defendant negligently failed to keep the building's gutters freeand clear at all times of stored materials and of an accumulation of water, mud, and refuse, inviolation of section 26--172 of the Rockford Code of Ordinances (Rockford Code of Ordinances