BlogLine

Tow‑truck ride home leads to no‑duty ruling under Illinois negligence law

3/11/26

By: Joseph Tripoli 

Commercial transportation companies, service providers, and insurers are often asked to defend claims where an employee allegedly should have taken extra steps to help a customer avoid getting hurt. Tolentino v. Clifford’s Towing & Recovery, LLC is a recent Illinois appellate decision that addresses this issue directly. The opinion shows how courts assess claims based on a failure to assist and why difficult conditions or a customer’s limitations do not automatically create a legal duty. For companies whose employees sometimes go beyond their core service, the case provides practical guidance on how courts evaluate duty.

Background: A Late‑Night Tow and a Fall at Home

Tolentino’s wife requested towing assistance late at night when her vehicle became disabled. When the tow‑truck driver arrived close to midnight, Tolentino accepted a courtesy ride home in the passenger seat of the truck. The steps into the cab were tall, and the conditions were dark, cold, and misty, but Tolentino entered without asking for help. During the brief ride, he mentioned that he was blind in one eye but did not ask the driver for assistance with getting in or out of the truck.

After arriving at his home, the driver exited the cab to unload the disabled vehicle. Tolentino waited briefly, then opened the passenger door and attempted to climb down on his own. As he stepped onto the upper step, his foot slipped, and he fell to the ground, fracturing his leg.

Tolentino sued, alleging the towing company owed him the highest duty of care as a common carrier and that the driver was negligent for failing to warn him or help him descend safely. He claimed the driver should have assisted him given his vision impairment, the lighting conditions, the height of the steps, and his unfamiliarity with the vehicle. He did not, however, allege that the driver created any of those conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no duty under the circumstances.

Appellate Court: No Special Relationship, No Duty

The appellate court affirmed. It began with the threshold question in any negligence claim: whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care. The court observed that the conditions contributing to the fall—the darkness, the weather, the step height, and Tolentino’s vision impairment—were not created by the tow‑truck driver. And because the complaint did not allege that the driver caused these conditions, the court concluded that Tolentino needed to establish a special relationship to impose an affirmative duty to act.

Tolentino argued that the towing company functioned as a common carrier and therefore owed him the highest duty of care. The court found that tow‑truck operators are carriers of property, not passengers, and their business does not involve transporting individuals for hire. A courtesy ride home did not convert the tow operation into a passenger‑carrying business. Without a special relationship, the court determined that there was no legal duty to warn or assist Tolentino in exiting the truck.

No Voluntary Undertaking

Tolentino also raised a voluntary‑undertaking theory. Under this rule, a defendant who undertakes a task it was not otherwise required to perform must use reasonable care in doing so. The court found no evidence that the driver undertook responsibility for helping Tolentino exit the cab. The record showed only an agreement to provide transportation. Tolentino’s unspoken expectation of assistance was not enough to establish an undertaking.

The court further explained that even if a voluntary undertaking were assumed, Tolentino’s claim would still fail. His theory was one of nonfeasance—a failure to act. For nonfeasance, liability arises only when the defendant created the risk of harm or a special relationship imposed a duty to assist. The court determined that neither requirement was met. The driver did not create the lighting conditions, the weather, the configuration of the truck, or Tolentino’s vision impairment. And although the driver may have been aware of the impairment, the court concluded that awareness alone did not create a duty to intervene where no duty otherwise existed.

Takeaways

For businesses that interact closely with customers, this decision offers several practical reminders. Courts look first at whether an employee created the condition that caused the injury. When the condition already existed, a duty to assist is far less likely to be recognized. Courtesy rides or informal accommodations generally will not convert a transportation or service provider into a carrier with heightened obligations. Claims based on a failure to help require more than a customer’s expectation of assistance; they require a legally recognized duty or a clear commitment by the employee to take on the task. And while a customer’s physical limitations may influence how employees choose to help, those limitations do not themselves create a legal duty where none otherwise exists. These principles explain how courts distinguish routine service interactions from situations where liability may arise.

For more information, please contact Joseph Tripoli at joseph.tripoli@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.