Walton v. Norphlett

Appellate Court of Illinois

Walton v. Norphlett

371 N.E.2d 978, 56 Ill. App. 3d 4, 13 Ill. Dec. 886, 1977 Ill. App. LEXIS 3940

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 22, 1977

Docket77-77

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 371 N.E.2d 978 (Walton v. Norphlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walton v. Norphlett, 371 N.E.2d 978, 56 Ill. App. 3d 4, 13 Ill. Dec. 886, 1977 Ill. App. LEXIS 3940 (Ill. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the circuit court of Cook County. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals.

The sole issue presented for review is whether this court should overturn over 100 years of well-settled Illinois law and rule a homeowner owes a duty to a licensee who enters upon his property, said duty being to make the property safe.

The facts of the case are undisputed. The defendant, Estelle Norphlett, invited the plaintiff, Lillian Walton, to her home for dinner. The plaintiff, while leaving the home of the defendant, slipped on a portion of the concrete stairs which was broken, fell and injured herself.

The plaintiff argues it is time for the courts of Illinois to make a homeowner liable for acts of ordinary negligence. The plaintiff concedes the law in Illinois now makes the occupier of land liable only for willful and wanton negligence to one who enters upon his land, as a licensee. While this court finds itself in sympathy with this contention of the plaintiff, it is not for this court to reverse the many cases and opinions of the Illinois Supreme Court. The cases cited by the defendant, Sims v. Sneed (1969), 118 Ill. App. 2d 294, Belden Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago Threaded Fasteners, Inc. (1967), 84 Ill. App. 2d 336, correctly point out the duty of the Appellate Court of Illinois is not to modify rules of law enunciated by our supreme court, but to follow them. What the plaintiff asks this court to do is not within the power of this court.

As both sides correctly state in their briefs, the law in Illinois is the occupier of land is only liable for willful and wanton misconduct towards a licensee. Both sides agree there was no willful and wanton misconduct in the instant case. Following the rule of law long established in Illinois and recently enunciated again by the supreme court in Washington v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1976), 66 Ill. 2d 103, we must affirm the decision of the trial court.

Accordingly, for the reasons contained herein, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the circuit court of Cook County. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals.

The sole issue presented for review is whether this court should overturn over 100 years of well-settled Illinois law and rule a homeowner owes a duty to a licensee who enters upon his property, said duty being to make the property safe.

The facts of the case are undisputed. The defendant, Estelle Norphlett, invited the plaintiff, Lillian Walton, to her home for dinner. The plaintiff, while leaving the home of the defendant, slipped on a portion of the concrete stairs which was broken, fell and injured herself.

The plaintiff argues it is time for the courts of Illinois to make a homeowner liable for acts of ordinary negligence. The plaintiff concedes the law in Illinois now makes the occupier of land liable only for willful and wanton negligence to one who enters upon his land, as a licensee. While this court finds itself in sympathy with this contention of the plaintiff, it is not for this court to reverse the many cases and opinions of the Illinois Supreme Court. The cases cited by the defendant, Sims v. Sneed (1969), 118 Ill. App. 2d 294, Belden Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago Threaded Fasteners, Inc. (1967), 84 Ill. App. 2d 336, correctly point out the duty of the Appellate Court of Illinois is not to modify rules of law enunciated by our supreme court, but to follow them. What the plaintiff asks this court to do is not within the power of this court.

As both sides correctly state in their briefs, the law in Illinois is the occupier of land is only liable for willful and wanton misconduct towards a licensee. Both sides agree there was no willful and wanton misconduct in the instant case. Following the rule of law long established in Illinois and recently enunciated again by the supreme court in Washington v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1976), 66 Ill. 2d 103, we must affirm the decision of the trial court.

Accordingly, for the reasons contained herein, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 N.E.2d 978, 56 Ill. App. 3d 4, 13 Ill. Dec. 886, 1977 Ill. App. LEXIS 3940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-norphlett-illappct-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack