NO DUTY TO HAVE DEFIBRILLATOR ON PREMISES

Couple of cases I've seen in the last couple of weeks that merit comment.

In Salte v. YMCA, the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois faced the question of whether a health club has a duty to have defibrillators on site for emergencies. Terry Salte was exercising at a YMCA health club on one of the treadmills. The YMCA employed a paramedic who was on duty that day, a couple of machines over, helping another member. Salte suffered cardiac arrest while on the treadmill. It isn't clear what steps the paramedic took to assist him prior to the arrival of county paramedics, but because the YMCA did not have a defibrillator on site, no such device was used. The plaintiff alleged that the YMCA had a duty to equip their paramedic personnel with such a device, and their failure to do so caused him significant physical damage. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed but didn't get any relief. The Appellate Court first noted that typically in Illinois, one has no duty to rescue an injured stranger if that person hadn't caused the injury. The opinion went on however, to recognize some exceptions to that rule, including those situations where a legitimate business customer is injured on business premises. So the Court did conclude the YMCA had a duty to render first aid to Salte. But the Court found that that's where their duty ended. The Appellate Court explictly found that the YMCA did not have a duty to have a defibrillator on its premises or to use it on plaintiff. The lower court's ruling was upheld.

NO BREAK FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEDESTRIAN

In another case[that has implications for at least one of my cases], a visually impaired pedestrian was injured due to a sidewalk defect as she walked down the street. The case is Postran v. City of Chicago. Ms. Postran was walking to her bus stop one day and saw that some repairs were being done on the sidewalk she intended to walk over, where it met with the alley. She noticed the work when she was 4-5 sidewalk squares away. The repairs, by her own admission, were significant - with a couple of sidewalk squares dug up, and the resulting trench at least 6 inches deep. She noticed all that before she arrived at the area of the repairs. Nonetheless, she tried to walk over the area, fell and suffered a wrist injury. She sued the City and the City asked the trial court to toss the case based on the "open and obvious doctrine". That doctrine basically says that landowners are not required to protect against injuries from conditions that are open and obvious. The courts have defined the "open and obvious" phrase to mean conditions that would be recognized by a reasonable person. Plaintiff, who recognized there were problems with the open and obvious issue, tried to skirt them by offering testimony about her visual disability. She testified that she had been blind in her left eye for nearly 40 years and had visual problems in the right eye as well. The trial court nonetheless threw the case out. And plaintiff appealed. On appeal the plaintiff argued that the City was required to prove that the dangerous condition was open and obvious to a person with similar disabilities - i.e. someone who doesn't see well. The Appellate Court didn't quite agree and noted that when a person is under a disability, like bad vision, they will be held to the standard of a reasonable person with a similar disability. The Court went on to find that the condition of the sidewalk, and the risk of walking on it, were obvious and would have been recognized by either a person with perfect eyesight or poor eyesight. The Court ruled that even assuming the plaintiff had difficulty seeing, the defect was still open and obvious. The court also found that the plaintiff couldn't rely on the exception to the open and obvious rule[which I wouldn't discuss]. The lower court's ruling was upheld.