222 Ill. 2d 422, 305 Ill. Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048 (2006)
On September 27, 2001, Pamela Fritz backed her car into a lamppost while attempting to exit the parking lot of a Burger King restaurant in Rockford, Illinois.1 When she drove forward from the lamppost, her accelerator stuck and she lost control of the vehicle.2 The car struck a sidewalk adjacent to the restaurant, became airborne, penetrated the brick half-wall and windows surrounding the restaurant's entrance, and struck Detroy Marshall III, who was eating inside the restaurant at the time, fatally injuring him.3
On September 24, 2003, Detroy Marshall, Jr., as personal representative and administrator of his son's estate, filed a six-count complaint in the circuit court of Winnebago County against Burger King Corporation, Davekiz, Inc., Pamela Fritz, and various insurers.4 Counts I through IV sought damages for negligence from Burger King and Davekiz under the Wrongful Death Act and the survival provision of the Probate Act of 1975 on behalf of the decedent's children and next of kin.5 The complaint alleged that Burger King franchised the Rockford restaurant to Davekiz, that both entities owned, operated, controlled, and maintained the premises, and that both directed and controlled the restaurant's design, construction, layout, floor plan, and building material specifications.6 It further alleged that defendants failed to exercise due care by omitting vertical concrete pillars or poles near the entrance, designing the building with brick only a few feet from the ground, constructing the sidewalk in violation of the BOCA Building Code, deviating from industry custom and practice, and otherwise failing to use due care in the design, construction, and maintenance of the building, parking lot, and sidewalk.7
Counts V and VI, which sought damages for spoliation of evidence from various insurers and Fritz, were settled before the appeal.8 On November 10, 2003, Burger King and Davekiz filed a joint motion to dismiss counts I through IV pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that they owed no duty to protect the decedent from injury caused by Fritz's car.9 The circuit court granted the motion.10
The appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.11 Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal, which the Supreme Court of Illinois allowed.12
Whether the allegations in plaintiff's complaint are sufficient to establish that Burger King and Davekiz owed a duty of care to the decedent?13
A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for business purposes owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to protect them from the negligent acts of third persons.14 This duty arises when the place or character of the business makes it reasonably foreseeable that such acts will occur.15 The duty is set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344.16
Yes. The complaint alleges that the decedent was a customer eating inside the defendants' restaurant when Fritz's car penetrated the building.17 Defendants knew or should have known of the risks from the high traffic location, lack of barriers, and design features.18 The special relationship of business invitor and invitee applies directly to this situation involving a negligent third-party act.19 The four duty factors do not justify an exemption from the duty.20
The allegations in plaintiff's complaint are sufficient to establish that defendants owed a duty of care to the decedent.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Freeman
Justice McMorrow dissented on the ground that the majority departed from the framework in Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass'n.22 A special relationship alone does not establish an affirmative duty to protect.23 The traditional duty factors must be considered first.24
The majority's exemption analysis improperly reverses the established framework for affirmative duties to protect.25 This constitutes error under principles of stare decisis.26
Joined by Justice Freeman
Justice Garman dissented on the ground that automobile-related accidents are not foreseeable as a matter of law in this context.27 The majority's categorical approach imposes an unprecedented duty that makes landowners insurers of invitees' safety.28 The burden of constructing impregnable barriers is unreasonable.29 The majority's resolution raises significant public policy concerns.30