Colonial Inn Motor Lodge, Inc. Ex Rel. Cincinnati Insurance v. Gay
288 Ill. App. 3d 32, 223 Ill. Dec. 674, 680 N.E.2d 407 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining if a duty of care exists, the key inquiry is the foreseeability of the plaintiff and the initial harm, not the foreseeability of the specific manner or extent of the resulting injury. The foreseeability of the particular resulting harm is properly considered as a question of fact for the jury under the element of proximate cause.
Facts:
- On October 30, 1992, Greg Gay was backing up his car in a parking lot adjacent to the Colonial Inn Motor Lodge.
- Gay was driving no faster than two miles per hour when he felt a bump, indicating his car had made contact with the Colonial Inn building.
- Gay looked in his rearview mirror, saw only the brick wall, believed he had caused no damage, and drove away without inspecting the point of impact.
- The impact was with an exterior air-conditioning or heating unit, which caused a dent and severed a gas line connected to it.
- A witness, Leann Johnson, heard a sound like a 'bang' and later saw the dent in the unit.
- The broken line allowed natural gas to leak and accumulate inside the hotel.
- The accumulated gas eventually contacted an ignition source, a pilot light for a dryer in the hotel's laundry room, causing a major fire and explosion that damaged the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Colonial Inn Motor Lodge, Inc. sued Greg Gay for negligence in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County (trial court).
- In a separate case consolidated for discovery, Antonio and Joanne Lubrano sued both Colonial Inn and Greg Gay for personal injuries.
- Gay filed a motion for summary judgment against Colonial Inn, arguing he owed no duty and his actions were not the proximate cause of the explosion.
- The trial court granted Gay's motion for summary judgment, finding the explosion was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the collision.
- Colonial Inn filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied.
- Colonial Inn (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District. Gay is the defendant-appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver who collides with a building's exterior unit at a low speed owe a duty of care to the building's owner for a subsequent gas explosion, and can the collision be the legal (proximate) cause of the damages even if the explosion was an unusual result?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Geiger
Yes, a driver owes a duty of care to the owner of an adjacent building, and a jury could find that a low-speed collision was the proximate cause of a subsequent explosion. The court erred by conflating the foreseeability analysis for duty with the analysis for proximate cause. For the purposes of determining duty, the focus is on the relationship between the parties and the foreseeability of the plaintiff, not the foreseeability of the specific injury that occurred. It is plainly foreseeable that a motorist driving in a parking lot could collide with an adjacent building, so a duty of care exists. The question of whether the specific result—an explosion—was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the collision is an issue of legal causation, which is a component of proximate cause and is typically a question of fact for a jury. Given that gas lines and ignition sources are common in buildings, a jury could find it was not so 'freakish' or 'fantastic' as to be unforeseeable as a matter of law. Therefore, summary judgment was improper.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial clarification on the role of 'foreseeability' in negligence law, cleanly separating its application to duty versus proximate cause. By holding that duty analysis focuses on the foreseeability of the plaintiff (the initial contact) while proximate cause analysis deals with the foreseeability of the specific harm, the court prevents the dismissal of cases involving unusual but not impossible chains of events. This decision strengthens the principle that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. It also extends the 'eggshell skull' rule concept to property, suggesting a defendant can be liable for unforeseeably extensive damage if the property had a hidden vulnerability, just as with a physically vulnerable person.
