The Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Costco Wholesale Corporation in a trip-and-fall case involving a customer, Terri Stout. The court ruled that the condition of the gas hose was open and obvious, meaning Costco had no legal obligation to protect against it. This decision affects how personal injury claims related to open and obvious hazards are evaluated in Illinois.
The case, Stout v. Costco Wholesale Corp., was filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County under docket number 2-25-0335. The incident occurred on March 22, 2022, when Stout tripped over a gas hose while refueling her husband's pickup truck at a Costco gas station in Mettawa, Illinois. Stout sustained significant injuries from the fall, prompting her to file a negligence lawsuit against Costco.
Stout alleged that the gas hose's mechanical retractable device was broken, violating state regulations and creating a dangerous condition. She claimed Costco failed to inspect the hose and warn her about the risk before she tripped. The case progressed through discovery, where both Stout and Costco employees were deposed.
On May 2, 2025, Costco filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Stout did not provide sufficient evidence of a defect in the hose or that the company had notice of any dangerous condition. Costco also contended that the hose was an open and obvious hazard and that Stout's own negligence was the sole cause of her injuries. In response, Stout argued that the hose was not open and obvious and that she did not recognize the risk of stepping over it while pumping gas.
The trial court granted Costco's motion for summary judgment, agreeing with the company that the condition was open and obvious. The court stated, "There is no duty to protect against potentially dangerous conditions that are open and obvious. Here, Plaintiff did not inadvertently trip over the hose. Rather, she saw it, knowingly attempted to step over it, and caught her foot on the hose as she was completing her final step." Stout subsequently appealed the ruling.
In its ruling, the appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that the gas hose was an open and obvious condition. The court noted that Stout had previously visited the gas station and was aware of the hose's presence. The court stated, "Plaintiff herself placed the gas nozzle and hose into the fuel port of her vehicle. There was no question of visibility and no testimony that the hose was somehow unable to be perceived." The court concluded that Stout's actions demonstrated her awareness of the hazard, as she attempted to step over the hose.
The court also addressed Stout's argument regarding the distraction exception to the open and obvious doctrine. Stout claimed that her concern about getting her clothes dirty from the wet hose distracted her. However, the court ruled that her behavior did not constitute a reasonable distraction, stating, "Plaintiff was not intent on avoiding another danger...she sought to avoid a self-determined hazard—getting her clothes dirty and wet if she touched the gas pump hose—by stepping over the hose, which only brought her closer to the hazard she claimed she wanted to avoid."
This ruling has significant implications for future personal injury cases in Illinois. It reinforces the principle that property owners may not be held liable for injuries resulting from open and obvious conditions. The court's analysis of the open and obvious doctrine emphasizes that individuals are expected to recognize and avoid hazards that are apparent to a reasonable person.
The decision also underscores the importance of a thorough duty analysis in negligence cases. The court noted that even if a condition is deemed open and obvious, it does not automatically absolve a defendant of duty. However, in this case, the court found that the balance of factors weighed against imposing a duty on Costco.
Looking ahead, Stout's case appears to be concluded with this appellate ruling, as the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Costco. There are no indications of further appeals or related cases pending. This case serves as a reminder for individuals to exercise caution around known hazards and for businesses to ensure that they maintain safe conditions for their customers.