The duty to warn against serious injury: can plaintiffs successfully challenge Illinois' tough standard?
Illinois Bar Journal › Vol. 97 Nbr. 10, October 2009
Linked as:
Extract
The duty to warn against serious injury: can plaintiffs successfully challenge Illinois' tough standard?
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The Illinois Supreme Court in Iseberg v Gross (1) addressed when a duty may be imposed on a party to warn or protect a person from incurring serious injury or being a victim of criminal conduct. The court ruled that such a duty exists only when the plaintiff and defendant are in one of the four "special relationships" enumerated in the Restatement of Torts. The authors review the Iseberg ruling, analyze the supreme and appellate court cases that preceded it--which went in a different direction--and look at a Restatement provision that may offer a way for plaintiffs to argue that a duty can exist apart from the "special relationships." The Iseberg facts and lower court rulings The issue arose out of the trial court's section 2-615 (2) dismissal of a negligence count brought by the plain...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
