Chicago Injury Lawyers Blog

If you are injured in a Chicago slip and fall accident, you may be entitled to compensation from the person or entity that was in charge of maintaining the area where the accident took place. This is true even if it was a public area under the management of a municipality. Suing a city or other entity can be a challenging and confusing process; however, due to the many different laws that apply. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to assist you with ensuring that you receive the compensation that you deserve.

In a recent case, a woman was reportedly injured when she stepped out of her parked vehicle and walked toward the front of the car, where she claimed she stepped into a pothole and twisted her left ankle. The pothole was roughly five feet long, according to a City investigator. The evidence was undisputed that the woman had parked in a no-parking zone that was painted yellow. It contained a fire hydrant. The evidence also established that part of her vehicle and the area where the pothole was located was not within the yellow no-parking zone.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the City owed her compensation because it was negligent in failing to maintain the area where the pothole was located and that it was responsible for her injuries as a direct result. The City moved for summary judgment claiming that it did not owe her a duty to maintain the area that was painted yellow to prohibit parking. An Illinois state law prohibited parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The City also alleged that her vehicle was nearly 16 feet long and that because she parked partially in the no-parking zone, it did not owe her a duty.

Continue reading

Most people have experienced some type of trip and fall in their lives. In most cases, the tumble can be harmless leaving you with a few bumps and bruises. In others, it can result in devastating injuries and even permanent disabilities. Although some trips are attributable to unforeseen circumstances, there are some situations where the property owner of the pace where the trip and fall took place was careless in maintaining the property. In this situation, the victim may have a claim to recover compensation for his or her trip and fall accident. Our dedicated team of Chicago premises liability attorneys is standing by to assist you with determining whether you are owed compensation.

The Illinois appellate court considered a claim recently involving a man who reportedly tripped through the doorway of a pantry where he was entering and exiting to retrieve donated food items. The plaintiff sued the food bank seeking damages for the lacerations and scarring that resulted to his face after the fall. He alleged that the owners of the pantry were negligent in maintaining the premises particularly when it came to the doorway. Plaintiff had been walking across a landing and down a set of stairs to a basement that housed the food pantry. Roughly 100 other people were waiting to accept food. The plaintiff asked for a box to help him carry his items, which he estimated to be roughly 20-pounds in weight. He held the box in front of his stomach with both hands as he walked.

The plaintiff alleged that he began speaking to someone who was holding the door open as he was leaving the pantry. He said this distracted him and that as he crossed the threshold, he felt a sudden drop and lost his balance, causing him to fall to the left.

Continue reading

When you are injured on someone else’s property, you can bring a personal injury action against the owner of the property to recover compensation for your injuries and damages. In cases where the injury takes place on a publicly maintained property, however, different issues may arise regarding liability and the evidence that you have to establish to show that the municipality or government entity failed to use due care in maintaining the property. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to help you with your Chicago premises liability claim after a careless governmental entity failed to protect you from preventable danger.

In a recent case, the plaintiff appealed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago in her lawsuit, where she alleged that the City failed to maintain one of its streets in a reasonably safe condition causing her to slip and fall into a large hole. The plaintiffs alleged that summary judgment was not proper because the plaintiff was an intended and permitted user of the street where the fall took place.

According to the City, it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the street in a safe condition because the plaintiff was not a permitted user of the street. It argued that its duty to maintain property was limited by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, which provides that a plaintiff must be a legally intended and permitted user of a property before the government entity can be subject to liability for any resulting injuries. It further alleged that the plaintiff was parked illegally under state law because she parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant and that her vehicle was in a yellow-painted no-parking area.

Continue reading

As winter approaches, Chicago property owners should review the rules that apply to maintain a safe property for pedestrians, guests, and business invitees. Under Illinois law, a property owner does not have a duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from his or her property. This standard may seem straightforward, but many slip and fall cases involve disputes about whether the accumulation was natural or unnatural, resulting from a modification or improvement that the property owner made. Our diligent team of Chicago premises liability attorneys is prepared to help you fight for your right to compensation after an avoidable slip and fall accident.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff’s slip and fall lawsuit was dismissed for failure to prove that the defendant created an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow. The plaintiff argued that this rule did not apply to her situation because she slipped on paint that was on top of a handicap symbol in a parking space in a parking lot that became unreasonably slippery, according to her complaint. In support of this assertion, the plaintiff provided an affidavit from an expert witness. The defendants moved to strike the affidavit, which the trial court granted on the basis that it was inadmissible and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On review, the appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court should not have struck the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit in its entirety or entered summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of whether the natural accumulation rule applied. Based on the evidence in the record, the appellate concluded that the jury could have found in favor of plaintiff’s theory that the handicap parking lot symbol was unreasonably slippery. The appellate court found that the natural accumulation rule did not apply to this situation because the main issue is whether the symbol was unreasonably slippery when it became wet regardless of whether the moisture resulted from a natural or unnatural accumulation.

Continue reading

If you live in Chicago, you know that ice and snow are a serious threat to safety. Countless Illinois slip and fall accidents happen each year when property owners fail to take responsible action to mitigate the threat of injuries from accumulating ice and snow. If you were hurt on another person’s property as a result of their negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact us today to start learning about your potential lawsuit.

Recently, an Illinois appellate court decided a case in which the plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries when he slipped on ice on a sidewalk outside of his residence. He sued the homeowner’s association and the snow removal contractor that serviced the condo complex. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff in a slip and fall case based on ice or snow must show that there was an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow or that the ice and snow accumulated unnaturally as the result of something that the property owner was doing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the ice and snow on which the plaintiff slipped was the result of natural accumulation and that they had not done anything to cause a greater amount of ice or snow to accumulate. The homeowner’s association also alleged that it did not have notice of water or ice pooling on the sidewalk area where the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff responded saying that he was suing not based on the theory of unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, but on the basis that the drainage system suffered from a defective design that resulted in an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow.

Continue reading

Slip and fall accidents are one of the most painful and sudden types of premises liability injuries that Chicago residents can suffer, especially in our winter months. There are many considerations that you have to make after a slip and fall accident, including whether you may be entitled to compensation from the person or company who owned the property where you slipped. As seasoned Chicago slip and fall attorneys, we are ready to help you explore your legal options and to ensure that you are treated fairly.

A recent case discussed a slip and fall accident at a bar. Reportedly, the plaintiff was leaving the bar when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice resulting in a broken leg. The plaintiff had several surgeries to address the pain, but he still experienced discomfort and reported having a limited range of motion due to the injury. The plaintiff filed a claim against the bar seeking compensation based on a number of theories including negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence showing how the floor where he slipped became wet or showing that the defendant had constructive notice about the dangerous condition on the property. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment. The court started by reiterating that a business owner owes a duty to patrons to use ordinary care in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition. The court then highlighted several pieces of evidence in the record showing that the moisture at the exit of the establishment had likely been there for quite some time, meaning that the owner had a reasonable period of time to identify and remedy the dangerous condition.

Continue reading