Background
Terri Stout fell while refueling her husband’s pickup truck at a Costco gas station in Mettawa, Illinois. The truck’s fuel port was beside the pump, and Stout inserted the nozzle and began pumping. The hose hung in a U-shape between the pump and the truck. Seeking to tell her husband the gas price, Stout chose to step over the wet hose rather than walk around the vehicle. She cleared it with her right foot but caught the hose with her left foot and fell.
Stout sued Costco for negligence, alleging that the hose’s mechanical retractor was broken in violation of State Fire Marshal regulations and that Costco failed to inspect or warn of the resulting dangerous condition. The Lake County circuit court granted Costco summary judgment, including on the ground that the hose was an open and obvious condition.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed. It held that the gas hose was open and obvious as a matter of law. Stout herself created the obstacle by placing the nozzle in the vehicle, knew the hose’s location, and demonstrated her appreciation of the hazard by taking a high step over it with her right foot.
The court also performed the duty analysis the trial court had not expressly conducted. Because the hazard was open and obvious, the foreseeable likelihood of injury was slight. Imposing a duty to warn or prevent customers from stepping over hoses would require Costco to dedicate employees to that task at its fuel stations. The distraction exception did not apply because Stout’s concern about getting her clothes wet or dirty was a self-created distraction, and she forfeited the deliberate-encounter argument by not raising it below. In any event, walking around the truck was a reasonable alternative.
Key Takeaways
- A customer’s knowledge of a gas hose and attempt to step over it can establish that the tripping hazard was open and obvious.
- An open and obvious condition still requires a traditional duty analysis, but the doctrine substantially reduces foreseeability and likelihood-of-injury considerations.
- A plaintiff’s personal concern about avoiding contact with a wet or dirty hose was not a reasonably foreseeable distraction under the exception.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that an obvious obstacle may defeat a premises-liability claim at summary judgment when the undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff knew of and appreciated the risk. It also underscores that Illinois courts must conduct a duty analysis after finding a condition open and obvious, even if an appellate court supplies that analysis on de novo review.