Brown v. K.J.S. Co.

Decision Date02 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. 24449,No. 2-88-1269,24449,2-88-1269
Citation136 Ill.Dec. 1031,189 Ill.App.3d 768,545 N.E.2d 555
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Parties, 136 Ill.Dec. 1031 Dorothy BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.J.S. COMPANY, as Managing Agent for the Beneficiaries of Trust, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1989.

Jeffrey D. Schultz, Ltd., Sam Cuba, Jeffrey D. Schultz, Ltd., Chicago, for Dorothy Brown.

Ryan & Viglione, Kathleen M. Viglione, Ryan & Viglione, Waukegan, for K.J.S. Co.

Justice REINHARD delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Dorothy Brown, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Lake County dismissing her second amended complaint against defendants, K.J.S. Company and Joseph and Eleih Serafine, in her negligence action seeking recovery for injuries allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on wet, icy stairs outside an apartment leased to her by defendants.

The only issue raised on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in finding that the complaint failed to establish a duty owed to plaintiff, either under the terms of the lease or by prior conduct of defendants, and therefore did not state a cause of action.

Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleged that defendants, as owners and leasing agents for the owners of an apartment, owed a duty to plaintiff, as tenant, pursuant to the lease to make reasonable inspections of the stairs at reasonable times and to make reasonable repairs of the stairs. The complaint further alleged that defendants owed a duty to construct and maintain stairs that would not increase the risk of falling on snow and ice due to the stairs causing a greater accumulation to occur and that defendant, by past conduct, had voluntarily assumed a duty to remove ice and snow. The complaint alleged that defendants' negligent performance of these duties proximately caused plaintiff to fall and injure herself.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint, relying on their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. In that motion, defendants contended there was no liability for injuries resulting from natural accumulations of ice and snow, that removal of ice and snow was not within the scope of a covenant to make reasonable repairs, and that no duty arose as a result of any snow removal undertaken in the past.

On November 29, 1988, the circuit court entered an order finding that no duty existed on the basis of the lease or any prior undertaking to remove snow and ice and dismissed the complaint "with prejudice," but granted leave to plaintiff to file a third amended complaint "based on common law negligence only." The court's order recited that there was no just reason to delay its enforcement or appeal.

Thereafter, on December 1, 1988, plaintiff filed her third amended complaint, wherein she repeated, inter alia, the allegation from the second amended complaint that defendants owed a duty to construct and maintain stairs which would not increase the risk of falling by making a greater accumulation of ice and snow occur. Defendants filed an answer to this complaint. Plaintiff, on December 28, 1988, filed her notice of appeal from the order of November 29, 1988.

Before proceeding to the merits of this appeal, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the order appealed from. Though neither party raises the issue, we have a duty to consider our jurisdiction and dismiss an appeal if jurisdiction is wanting. Ferguson v. Riverside Medical Center (1985), 111 Ill.2d 436, 440, 96 Ill.Dec. 47, 490 N.E.2d 1252; Voiland v. Warsawsky (1989), 182 Ill.App.3d 332, 334, 131 Ill.Dec. 389, 538 N.E.2d 764.

Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (124 Ill.2d R. 304(a)) provides that in an action involving...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Grove v. Carle Foundation Hosp., 4-05-0488.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28 mars 2006
    ...the subparagraphs. Hull, 165 Ill.App.3d at 733-34, 117 Ill.Dec. 369, 520 N.E.2d at 721; see also Brown v. K.J.S. Co., 189 Ill.App.3d 768, 770, 136 Ill.Dec. 1031, 545 N.E.2d 555, 556 (1989). We do not believe, however, that the above cases cited by defendants speak either to the facts of the......
  • Lozman v. Putnam, 1-00-1121.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28 février 2002
    ...of pending counts below. Viirre, 212 Ill.App.3d at 512, 156 Ill.Dec. 622, 571 N.E.2d 209; Brown v. K.J.S. Co., 189 Ill. App.3d 768, 771, 136 Ill.Dec. 1031, 545 N.E.2d 555 (1989); In re Marriage of Ryan, 188 Ill.App.3d 679, 682, 136 Ill.Dec. 1, 544 N.E.2d 454 Based on the foregoing, the circ......
  • Village of Island Lake v. Parkway Bank and Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 avril 1991
    ...(Ferguson v. Riverside Medical Center (1985), 111 Ill.2d 436, 440, 96 Ill.Dec. 47, 490 N.E.2d 1252; Brown v. K.J.S. Co. (1989), 189 Ill.App.3d 768, 770, 136 Ill.Dec. 1031, 545 N.E.2d 555.) We must therefore carefully review the procedural posture of this A final judgment was entered, after ......
  • American Nat. Bank v. Richoz
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 2 octobre 1989
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT