Trial Evidence—Not Summary Judgment Papers—Control On Appeal

Navigating the transition from Trial Evidence vs Summary Judgment is critical for success in Commercial Litigation Chicago. This post explores how summary judgment motions Illinois filings can fail on appeal if not properly introduced at trial, drawing on key lessons from recent Illinois appellate rulings.

Understanding the Role of Trial Evidence vs Summary Judgment

What significance does a premises liability claim have to business lawsuits such as shareholder disputes, legal and accounting malpractice actions, and insurance coverage claims? Many commercial litigation cases present summary judgment motions, and many of these motions present excerpts from depositions and numerous documentary exhibits. But when summary judgments are denied, the case proceeds to trial. The following premises liability case tells commercial litigators to take care to introduce the same favorable exhibits and testimony at the trial as were presented in the summary judgment papers. Absent presentation at trial, evidence presented at the summary judgment stage will not be considered.

Lessons from a Premises Liability Case: Gardner v. City of Loves Park

In Gardner v. City of Loves Park, the Fourth District affirmed a substantial jury verdict in favor of a homeowner injured by a broken curb. The plaintiff, a 79-year-old homeowner, was injured when she tripped on a broken curb directly in front of her home while retrieving her mail. The curb was owned and maintained by the City of Loves Park and had been in disrepair for many years.

Although the plaintiff acknowledged she knew the curb was broken, she testified that she used the same route every day—down her driveway, across the apron, and over the curb—because it was the only practical way to reach her mailbox without walking through uneven, wet grass.

The city had previously attempted to patch the curb with asphalt, but the repair deteriorated over time. At trial, photographs of the curb's condition were admitted into evidence, along with testimony from the plaintiff and a civil engineering expert.

At every stage of litigation, the city argued it owed no duty to the plaintiff because the broken curb was an open and obvious condition. According to the city, the deliberate encounter exception did not apply because the plaintiff could have avoided the curb by walking through the grass parkway.

The city sought dismissal through summary judgment, directed verdict, and Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Each request was denied. Illinois law recognizes that even when a dangerous condition is open and obvious, a landowner may still owe a duty if it is reasonably foreseeable that people will encounter the danger anyway because the advantages of doing so outweigh the apparent risk.

The key question is not whether the plaintiff acted cautiously, but whether the defendant should have anticipated the plaintiff's conduct. The jury was accordingly instructed to determine whether the city could reasonably expect a person in the plaintiff's position—knowing of the broken curb—to proceed anyway.

Why Summary Judgment Motions Evidence Won't Save Your Appeal

To commercial litigators, the most significant aspect of the appellate court's opinion is its treatment of evidence raised at summary judgment but never introduced at trial.

The city argued on appeal that the plaintiff had a reasonable alternative path through the grass parkway. But the appellate court explicitly rejected that argument for a crucial reason:

The city relied on evidence presented at summary judgment, not evidence presented to the jury.

The court emphasized that when reviewing the denial of a directed verdict or JNOV, it may consider only the evidence introduced at trial and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Materials submitted at summary judgment but not admitted at trial do not count. This distinction proved fatal to the city's appeal.

Protecting Your Case in Illinois Appellate Court Review

At summary judgment, parties often submit affidavits, photographs, diagrams, and other materials to frame factual disputes. But if those materials are not later introduced at trial—through testimony, exhibits, or stipulation—they play no role in post-trial motions or appellate review.

In Gardner, the city argued the grass parkway was a safe, readily accessible alternative route. But it failed to introduce trial evidence establishing that point. As a result, the appellate court declined to consider the city's summary-judgment evidence when reviewing the jury's verdict.

Trial Evidence vs Summary Judgment Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between trial evidence and summary judgment evidence on appeal?

Summary judgment evidence includes all affidavits and exhibits filed to decide if a trial is necessary. However, for an Illinois Appellate Court Review of a jury verdict, only the evidence actually admitted during the trial is considered. If a document was used in a motion but not presented at trial, the court will ignore it.

Can I use summary judgment papers to support a post-trial motion?

No. When reviewing motions like a JNOV or directed verdict, the court focuses strictly on the trial record. This is a common pitfall in Commercial Litigation cases where extensive evidence is often gathered but not all of it is formally introduced to the jury.

How does the Gardner v. City of Loves Park ruling affect legal malpractice appeals?

In Legal Malpractice Appeals, the failure of an attorney to introduce critical evidence at trial that was available during summary judgment could be seen as a tactical error or negligence. This case serves as a warning to preserve all necessary evidence within the trial record.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.