Peggy Coleman v. Ramada Hotel Operating Company, Doing Business as Lakelawn Lodge
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10146, 933 F.2d 470 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois law, a person who voluntarily participates in an activity with an open and obvious risk of injury has assumed that risk, which serves as a complete bar to recovery from a property owner for negligence. A property owner has no duty to warn of such open and obvious dangers.
Facts:
- Peggy Coleman was an employee of McDonald's Corporation attending an annual company picnic.
- The picnic was held at Lakelawn Lodge, a resort owned by Ramada Hotel Operating Company.
- The event featured a 'mini Olympics' obstacle course, one part of which required participants to climb up the chute of a playground slide and descend its ladder.
- The slide was in good repair, stable, and had firm handrails, presenting no latent dangers.
- Coleman voluntarily chose to compete in the event after observing a teammate complete the same task.
- While descending the slide's ladder, Coleman slipped from the second step from the top, fell, and fractured her ankle.
Procedural Posture:
- Peggy Coleman filed a personal injury suit against Ramada Hotel Operating Company in federal district court.
- Ramada moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ramada, finding Coleman had assumed the risk.
- Coleman, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 person who voluntarily participates in a recreational activity with an open and obvious risk of injury assume that risk, thereby barring recovery from the property owner for alleged negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Cudahy, Circuit Judge
Yes, a person who voluntarily participates in a recreational activity with an open and obvious risk of injury assumes that risk, which bars recovery from the property owner. Illinois law does not impose a duty on property owners to warn of open and obvious risks. The danger of climbing a slide backwards is a blatant risk that an adult should be expected to appreciate, even in the excitement of a competition. Coleman's conduct constitutes primary implied assumption of risk because the danger she faced stemmed from the inherent nature of the activity itself, not from any negligence on Ramada's part. By freely and knowingly choosing to participate, she accepted the inherent perils of the activity, and her choice nullified any potential liability on Ramada's part. This doctrine applies to business invitees like Coleman and remains a complete bar to recovery.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk as a complete defense to negligence, even in a legal system with comparative negligence. It clarifies that this defense is applicable when a plaintiff voluntarily encounters risks that are inherent to and obvious in an activity, as distinct from risks created by a defendant's separate negligence. The ruling demonstrates that the 'open and obvious' nature of a risk negates both the defendant's duty to warn and the plaintiff's ability to recover, solidifying a significant hurdle for plaintiffs injured during recreational activities.
