Background
Terri Stout was refueling a pickup truck at a Costco gas station in Mettawa, Illinois. After placing the nozzle in the truck’s driver-side fuel port, she decided to return to the driver’s door to tell her husband the price of the gasoline. Rather than walk around the truck, she attempted to step over the hose. Her right foot cleared it, but her left foot caught on it, causing her to fall and sustain significant injuries.
Stout sued Costco for negligence, alleging that the hose’s mechanical retractor was broken, creating a dangerous condition, and that Costco failed to inspect the hose or warn her. The Lake County circuit court granted Costco summary judgment based on insufficient evidence of a defect or notice and the open and obvious nature of the hose. Stout appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the hose was an open and obvious condition as a matter of law. Stout had placed the nozzle and hose into the truck herself, knew the hose was present, and demonstrated her appreciation of the tripping risk by taking high steps to cross it. The hose’s precise height was immaterial because the undisputed evidence and video showed that she recognized it as an obstacle.
Applying Illinois’s four-factor duty analysis, the court concluded that Costco owed no duty under these circumstances. The hose’s obviousness made an injury less foreseeable and less likely, while requiring Costco employees to monitor and prevent customers from stepping over hoses at every fuel station would impose a substantial burden. The distraction exception did not apply because Stout’s concern about getting moisture or dirt from the hose on her clothing was self-created and not a distraction Costco could reasonably foresee. The court also held that she forfeited the deliberate-encounter argument by failing to raise it below and, alternatively, that the exception failed because walking around the truck offered a safe route involving only minor inconvenience.
Key Takeaways
- A gas hose was open and obvious where the customer placed it in the vehicle and visibly adjusted her steps to cross it.
- A plaintiff’s self-created concern about avoiding moisture or dirt does not establish the distraction exception absent a reasonably foreseeable diversion of attention.
- The deliberate-encounter exception generally does not apply when a safe alternate route presents only a minor inconvenience.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how Illinois courts evaluate a plaintiff’s knowledge and conduct when deciding whether a condition and its associated risk were open and obvious. It also confirms that courts must still conduct the traditional duty analysis after finding a hazard open and obvious.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).