## Facts

- Illinois residents Joseph McIntyre, Donald Fett, and Joseph O’Brien planned a five-day vacation to Acapulco, Mexico, and invited guests; Diane Esser accepted an invitation extended in Illinois.
- The group stayed in a multi-level villa at a hotel resort, including a kitchen with a glazed tile floor.
- After the first night, Esser testified she entered the kitchen in the morning to get coffee, slipped on unpopped popcorn kernels on the tile floor, and fell, injuring her back.
- Esser testified McIntyre apologized and stated he had spilled the popcorn the prior evening and could not find anything to clean it up.
- Esser later obtained medical treatment in Chicago, underwent surgery, and claimed continuing pain and depression.
- McIntyre and other travelers disputed Esser’s account and denied knowledge of a fall or popcorn on the floor.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois or Mexican law governed a tort claim arising from an injury in Mexico involving Illinois domiciliaries whose relationship was formed in Illinois.
2. Whether McIntyre was an “occupier of land” under Illinois premises-liability doctrine (owing only a limited duty to a licensee) or instead owed Esser a duty of ordinary care.
3. Whether impeachment evidence concerning a witness’s disreputable occupation was properly admitted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the appellate court’s judgment reversing the defense verdict and remanding for a new trial.
- Illinois law applied under the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” test because, despite the foreign injury location, the parties were Illinois residents and their relationship was centered in Illinois.
- McIntyre was not an “occupier of land” for premises-liability purposes because he lacked sufficient control over the premises; he owed Esser a duty of ordinary care.
- The trial court’s instruction limiting McIntyre’s duty to willful and wanton misconduct was erroneous and prejudicial, requiring a new trial.
- Testimony about a witness’s disreputable occupation was irrelevant to the main factual dispute and should not have been admitted.

## Legal Principles

- In tort conflicts, Illinois applies the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” approach, weighing (among other contacts) the injury location, the place of conduct, the parties’ domiciles, and where their relationship is centered.
- When the parties are Illinois domiciliaries and their relationship was created and centered in Illinois, Illinois law may govern even if the injury occurred outside Illinois.
- “Occupier of land” status in Illinois premises liability depends on possessory control; a trip organizer or co-guest in hotel accommodations is not automatically treated as an occupier.
- Misstating the duty of care in jury instructions (ordinary negligence versus willful and wanton misconduct) is reversible error when it materially affects the liability standard applied.
- Impeachment evidence must be relevant to credibility in a manner connected to issues being tried; collateral attacks lacking probative value are improper.

## Conclusion

The court held that Illinois law governed the foreign vacation injury because Illinois had the most significant relationship to the parties and their relationship, and it required a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed on duty: McIntyre was not an occupier of land and owed Esser ordinary care.


Esser v. McIntyre, 169 Ill. 2d 292, 661 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 1996)