noting violations of supreme court rules that do not “hinder or preclude our review” need not be stricken in whole or in part
How later courts described this case
- noting violations of supreme court rules that do not “hinder or preclude our review” need not be stricken in whole or in part
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring:
Although I agree with the result in this case, I specially concur because the majority opinion views the scope of the “property” at issue one way for the purpose of determining who was a “permitted” user and another way for the purpose of determining who was an “intended” user.
The majority concludes that the scope of the property under section 3 — 102(a) (745 ILCS 10/3 — 102(a) (West 2006)) is the stairs themselves for the purpose of determining who was an intended user. However, the majority also appears to conclude that the scope of the property should be the parking garage as a whole when determining who was a permitted user. I disagree with this analysis. The scope of the property is either the stairs or it is the garage as a whole, but the scope should be the same when deciding who was an intended and permitted user.
The scope of the property in this case should be limited to the stairs. As such, a question of material fact exists as to whether the decedent was “permitted” to use those stairs for their “intended” use, as the majority puts it, of “ascending and descending” on the day of the accident.