City Owes No Duty To Pedestrians Exiting Taxis
Unsurprisingly,
in an unreported opinion, the Court has again refused to expand the duty owed
by a municipality to pedestrians exiting vehicles, specifically taxis. Decker v. City of Chicago, 2018 IL App (1st) 171066- U
As
background, Section 3-102 (a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental
Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity Act”) imposes a duty on
municipalities only where the person injured is an intended and permitted
user of the property controlled by the municipality. The general rule in
Illinois is that a municipality does not owe a duty to pedestrians who walks or
crosses in a public roadway outside of a crosswalk. The reasoning is that
streets are intended for cars and not for pedestrians. The Supreme Court has,
however, recognized a very narrow exception which concerns only the permitted
and intended use of the street immediately around a legally parked
vehicle by its exiting and entering vehicle operators and passengers.
Decker argues that the taxi stopping to drop him off was essentially a legal
stopped vehicle, meaning he fell within this narrow exception and the City was
liable for his injuries. The Court disagreed.
The
following factors are considered in determining whether a duty is owed by a
municipality: (1) the foreseeability that the municipality’s conduct will
result in injury; (2) likelihood of injury; (3) magnitude of guarding against
it; and, (4) the consequences of placing that burden upon the defendant. The
Court here ultimately concluded that while it was entirely possible that an
injury like Decker’s would occur to people getting into or getting out of a
taxi, the burden of requiring municipalities to maintain the areas surrounding
a legally stopped taxi would be unduly expensive and burdensome. Plus, taxis
can stop anywhere and by expanding the duty to any location a taxi decides to
stop would swallow the intended user rule of Section 3-102(a) because it would
allow taxi cab drivers to create a municipal duty of care where one does not
exist every single time they drop off a passenger.
Decker
v. City of Chicago
is not the first, nor will it be the last case to try and convince the Court to
expand the narrow rule involving the duty owed to a person exiting and/or
entering a vehicle. Stay tuned…
Post Authored by Christy Michaelson, Ancel Glink
