Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · 2000 · Torts

TortsNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturSpoliation of EvidenceContributionsummary judgmentgas utility dutyinspection and maintenance

Facts

Cosgrove and her roommate observed sparking power lines in the alley behind their home on July 25, 1995, and later that night a fire erupted there during a storm. The roommate saw an electrical wire fall and a nearby tree catch fire, and both witnesses saw a tall blue flame shooting into the air from the ground. Several hours after the fire was extinguished, firefighters detected the smell of gas and called Northern Illinois Gas, which found and repaired a leak in a gas line running in the alley behind Cosgrove's residence. In repairing the leak, NiGas removed a section of pipe that was later lost or destroyed.

Issue

Whether summary judgment was proper on Cosgrove's negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and spoliation claims against NiGas and ComEd, and on ComEd's contribution counterclaim against NiGas. More specifically, the court considered whether NiGas owed a duty absent prior notice of a leak, whether res ipsa loquitur could apply to the gas company and the electric utility, and whether the loss of the pipe supported negligent spoliation.

Rule

To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show duty, breach, and proximate cause. A gas company supplying a dangerous commodity must exercise care commensurate with the danger and has a duty to inspect and maintain its lines; that duty does not depend on prior notice of a leak. Res ipsa loquitur requires that the occurrence ordinarily would not happen absent negligence and that the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality causing the event; it does not apply when the injury is as readily attributable to pure accident, but in gas cases the immediate source of ignition is irrelevant if escaping gas was a proximate cause. Negligent spoliation is analyzed under negligence principles and requires duty, breach, injury, damages, and facts showing that the loss of evidence deprived the plaintiff of a reasonable probability of succeeding in the underlying suit.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, a buried natural-gas service line owned by Prairie Hearth Gas runs beneath an alley behind several townhomes. After an overnight fire, investigators discover a leak in the line, and resident Elena Ruiz sues Prairie Hearth Gas for negligent inspection and maintenance even though no one had reported smelling gas before the fire.

Prairie Hearth Gas moves for summary judgment, arguing it owed Elena no duty absent prior notice of a leak. How should the court rule?

Explanation. A gas supplier furnishes a dangerous commodity and therefore must exercise care commensurate with that danger. Under the majority opinion, the utility's duty to inspect and maintain its gas lines does not depend on prior notice of a leak. A contrary rule would improperly let the utility avoid inspection duties until after someone reported danger. (Derived from Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (n.d.).)