Votava v. Material Service Corp.
74 Ill. App. 3d 208, 30 Ill. Dec. 113, 392 N. E. 2d 768 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private body of water does not become public 'navigable waters' without clear proof of the owner's intent to dedicate it for public use. A landowner owes no duty to a trespasser injured by a static condition on the property, except to refrain from willful and wanton misconduct.
Facts:
- The defendant operated a 'wet' sand and gravel pit on private property, which created a lake several square miles in area.
- The lake was connected to the navigable Illinois River via a man-made channel.
- The defendant placed prominent 'No Trespassing' signs and used a pontoon bridge to block access to the lake from the channel, particularly on weekends.
- The bridge was periodically removed to allow commercial barges to enter or exit the lake.
- On July 14, 1974, the plaintiff and his companions were explicitly told by tug crew members near the bridge that they could not enter the private lake.
- Later that evening, after the pontoon bridge was removed, the plaintiff and his companions entered the lake in their motor boat.
- While inside the lake after dark, the plaintiff's boat ran into a partially submerged barge that the defendant used for storage and which had been in the same location for approximately 15 years.
- The collision caused the plaintiff to be seriously injured and one of his companions to be killed.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a three-count personal injury complaint in the circuit court of Kane County (the trial court).
- Count I alleged a maritime tort, Count II alleged willful and wanton negligence, and Count III alleged simple negligence.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court dismissed Count I (maritime tort) and Count III (simple negligence).
- The jury proceeded only on Count II and returned a 'not guilty' verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal of Count I and Count III to the 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 landowner owe a duty of ordinary care to a trespasser injured by a static condition on a privately-owned body of water that, despite being connected to a public river, is not considered 'navigable waters' due to the owner's consistent and overt efforts to prohibit public access?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rechenmacher
No. A landowner owes no duty to a trespasser other than to refrain from willful and wanton injury, particularly when the injury results from a static condition on the land rather than the owner's active conduct. The waters in question were private, not navigable, because the defendant never intended to dedicate them to public use. To the contrary, the defendant made continuous efforts to prevent public access through signs, a pontoon bridge, and actively removing trespassers. Citing DuPont v. Miller, the court found no 'clear and satisfactory proof' of intent to dedicate. Therefore, admiralty law does not apply. Under Illinois common law, the duty owed to a trespasser is only to avoid willful and wanton injury. The court distinguished this case, involving a static condition (the submerged barge), from cases involving active negligence (like an owner's employees throwing lumber). Since the defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's presence immediately before the accident and the injury arose from a pre-existing condition, no duty of ordinary care was breached.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law rule regarding landowner liability to trespassers in Illinois, strictly limiting the duty of care for injuries caused by static conditions on the premises. It clarifies that converting a private waterway to a public 'navigable' one requires a very high evidentiary standard, focusing on the owner's subjective intent to dedicate rather than the mere fact of occasional, prohibited public use. This strengthens protections for private landowners, making it difficult for trespassers to succeed on simple negligence claims for injuries sustained from known or existing hazards on the property.
