stating that “judicial admissions do not include admissions made during the course of other court proceedings,” but such statements constitute “evidentiary admissions”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “judicial admissions do not include admissions made during the course of other court proceedings,” but such statements constitute “evidentiary admissions”
- duty owed an invitee extends only as far as the invitation extended to the invitee
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE O’BRIEN, dissenting:
I disagree with the majority on the last and dispositive issue: that the court’s instruction as to the status of the plaintiff as an invitee or trespasser was error and required reversal and remandment.
The majority states, "In Illinois, an invitee exceeds the scope of the invitation only when the invitee has traveled to an area to which he was not invited.” (Emphasis added.) 289 Ill. App. 3d at 1011.
Admittedly, Illinois cases have emphasized the geography of the premises when addressing the scope of the invitation. However, Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 120.07.02 (3d ed. 1990) clearly contemplates an invitee exceeding the scope of the invitation by the manner of use of the premises by the plaintiff. IPI Civil 3d No. 120.07.02 states:
"[_owed] [An (owner) (occupant) owes] defendant’s name [_] [an invitee] [a person on his property at his plaintiff’s name invitation or with his permission] the duty to use ordinary care to see that [activities] [operations] on the premises [were] [are] conducted with ordinary care for [_’s] [the plaintiff’s name invitee’s] [that person’s] safety. This duty extends [only to that portion of the premises onto which the person has either expressly or impliedly been (invited) (or) (given permission) to use or to that portion the (owner) (or) (occupant) might reasonably expect him to use in connection with the (invitation) (permission)] [and] [only to that manner of use which the (owner) (occupant) might reasonably expect in connection with the express or implied (invitation) (or) (permission)].
However, if_ [was not an invitee] [or] [was on plaintiff’s name a portion of the premises to which he was not expressly or impliedly (invited) (or) (permitted) (or) (which the (owner) (or) (occupant) would not reasonably expect him to use in connection with the (invitation) (or) (permission))] [or] [was using the premises for a purpose other than that for which he was (invited) (or) (permitted) (or) (for which the (owner) (occupant) might reasonably have expected him to use the premises], then it was the duty of the defendant to . refrain from wilful and wanton conduct which would endanger the safety of the plaintiff. [However, if (defendant) (_) knew, or defendant’s name in the exercise of ordinary care, should have anticipated that plaintiff was in a place of danger, then (defendant) (_) had a duty to exercise ordinary care for defendant’s name the safety of plaintiff.]” Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 120.07.02 (3d ed. 1995).
Although here the trial court did not use the pattern instruction, the given instruction paraphrased the IPI instruction. Accordingly, the use of such an instruction does not represent an "unprecedented extension of Illinois law” but one that is contemplated by the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.