Perri v. Furama Restaurant, Inc.
269 Ill. Dec. 834, 335 Ill. App. 3d 825, 781 N.E.2d 631 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner may owe a duty of care to a minor child, notwithstanding the presence of a supervising parent, if the business owner creates a dangerous condition of which the parent is unaware.
Facts:
- John and Amy Perri, with their infant daughter Leah, met family members, including four-year-old Jordan Marsala, for brunch at Furama Restaurant.
- The group was seated at a large round table with a lazy Susan in the center.
- A waitress, So Ching Wong, placed a pot of hot tea on the lazy Susan as the family was in the process of sitting down.
- Wong did not verbally alert anyone at the table to the presence of the hot tea.
- None of the adults at the table noticed that the pot of tea had been placed on the lazy Susan.
- A short time later, Jordan Marsala spun the lazy Susan.
- The spinning motion caused the teapot to tip over and spill, severely burning the infant, Leah Perri.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Amy Perri sued Furama Restaurant, Inc. in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court) for negligence.
- Furama Restaurant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to the plaintiffs and was not the proximate cause of the injury.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Furama Restaurant, finding it owed no duty to protect the child from the intervening act of her cousin.
- The Perris filed a post-trial motion, which was denied by the trial court.
- The Perris, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court.
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 restaurant owe a duty of care to a minor child injured by a dangerous condition, when the child's parents are present but were not made aware of the condition created by the restaurant's employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cohen
Yes, a restaurant may owe a duty of care under these circumstances. A parent's duty to supervise their child absolves a defendant of liability only for obvious risks or dangers of which the parent is or should be aware. This parental duty does not negate the business owner's duty when the business creates a danger unknown to the parents, as it is foreseeable that parents cannot guard against a danger they do not know exists. Here, the waitress placed hot tea on the table without alerting the adults, who were distracted while seating their children. Because the parents were unaware of the pot of tea, the restaurant is not absolved of its duty simply because the children were accompanied. Whether the pot of tea was an 'open and obvious' danger is a question of fact for a jury, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the interplay between a business owner's duty of care and a parent's duty to supervise. It establishes that the parental supervision defense is not absolute and is limited by the parents' awareness of the potential danger. The ruling prevents business owners from automatically shifting all responsibility for a child's safety to parents when the business itself creates a latent or non-obvious hazard. Future premises liability cases involving injuries to children will now more closely scrutinize whether the supervising adults were reasonably made aware of the specific risk that caused the harm.
