Articles Posted in Premises Accidents

One of the most common types of premises liability cases that we handle as Chicago personal injury attorneys are cases involving faulty or dangerous staircases. In a recent Illinois Court of Appeal opinion, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries when she fell down a staircase comprised of 15 wooden steps. The plaintiff alleged that her injuries occurred because the staircase did not contain a handrail on both sides of the stairs. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the property owners, alleging that they failed to meet their duty of care in ensuring that the staircase was safe and that they failed to provide adequate warnings about the staircase’s alleged danger. As far as injuries, the plaintiff suffered a fracture that required surgery and incurred a total of $240,000 in medical costs, according to her complaint.

During the discovery phase of the trial, the plaintiff testified that she could not identify or recall what caused her to lose her balance and fall down the staircase. The plaintiff testified instead that she recalled “flying through the air trying to get my grip or balance myself” but that there wasn’t anything for her to grab. The plaintiff also testified that she believed she would have been able to regain her balance had there been a handrail for her to grab. The plaintiff presented a building inspector as a witness who inspected the stairway. He provided an expert opinion indicating that the lack of adequate handrails violated Chicago’s Municipal Code 13-160-320(a) and 13-160-320(b).

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that the fact that the plaintiff did not know what caused her fall precluded her from proving that her injuries were a result of the defendant’s alleged negligence. The plaintiff refuted this, stating that her testimony regarding the impact of the inadequate handrails created a question of material fact rendering summary judgment inappropriate. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

Going up against big corporations and businesses can be intimidating, especially if you are entitled to compensation for painful injuries that you sustained as a result of their negligence. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago premises liability lawyers represent slip and fall accident victims and aren’t afraid to provide the tenacious and assertive legal representation that a powerful defendant may require.

Slip and fall cases are common in a bustling state like Illinois. A recent Illinois appellate court opinion considered the liability of a large national retailer for a customer’s slip and fall injuries. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a pool of liquid that had accumulated on the retail establishment’s floor. The plaintiff asserted a claim for basic negligence and a claim based on the Illinois Premises Liability Act. The defendant denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted an affirmative defense, contending that it could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because she slipped on what it described as “a natural accumulation of ice, snow or rainwater.”

The litigation proceeded to discovery, and the record included evidence suggesting that it was snowing on the day the incident occurred, that the shopping carts stored outside were covered in ice and snow, and that the defendant’s employees brought these carts into the store, where the water and melting ice accumulated.

Continue reading

As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers, we have assisted many Illinois residents with seeking compensation after suffering injuries due to someone else’s carelessness. One of the most common types of claims that we handle is a slip and fall case. Although these actions may seem straightforward, they can become rather complicated. In a recent Illinois Court of Appeal opinion, the plaintiff suffered injuries when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk in front of a restaurant. The plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the restaurant, alleging that she sustained injuries as a result of an uneven sidewalk in front of the restaurant. The husband joined the lawsuit, asserting a claim for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs also sued the City of Chicago.

During the discovery phase of the litigation, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery from the City on a variety of issues. The plaintiffs sought customer service records regarding the property, licensing documents from the City, a stipulation that the City had no pending plans to repair the sidewalk, a list of all of the employees who worked at the restaurant, all permitting documents regarding the property, any citations that the restaurant received in the years prior to the incident, and other documents. The City produced reports regarding complaints associated with the sidewalk but declined to produce any additional documents. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel, and the court did not include a hearing transcript or other information regarding the arguments that the parties submitted at the motion hearing.

The defendants both moved for summary judgment soon thereafter. The City alleged that it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because the sidewalk defect was negligible and that there was no evidence in the record that the City had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the defect. The lower court granted both the City’s and the restaurant’s motions for summary judgment, indicating that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence indicating that the City had actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk’s alleged defects. The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a reconsideration of the lower court’s rulings on the motions and a motion to reopen discovery on the issue of notice in the alternative. The lower court denied both motions.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion from the Illinois Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, the plaintiff filed an action against the City of Danville (“the City”), alleging that she suffered injuries as a result of a trip and fall accident that occurred on a sidewalk area maintained by the City. According to her complaint, the plaintiff was shopping on one afternoon in 2012. When returning to her parked vehicle after leaving a store in the downtown district, she used a sidewalk to get to her vehicle, which was parked roughly five storefronts away. Then, the plaintiff walked at an angle as she approached the curb where her vehicle was parked. As she did so, she alleges that she stepped into roughly of an inch of water pooling on the sidewalk and to the right side of a lamppost embedded in the sidewalk. As she stepped into the water, the plaintiff claims that her left shoe struck an object that caused her to lose her balance. She then fell forward, striking her chin on the sidewalk.

The plaintiff received nine stitches in her chin to close the wound. Her complaint also alleged that she suffered severe bruising to her left foot, face, and arms. During the fall, two of her teeth were chipped, and she required dental work to address this injury. She also claimed to have suffered a partially dislodged crown that was also treated by a dentist.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion from the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois, the plaintiff appealed a lower court’s ruling granting the defendant summary judgment based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel. According to this widely recognized legal principle, a party is precluded from taking a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she has taken in an earlier legal proceeding.

The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff asserted three causes of action against the defendant, alleging that he suffered injuries while shopping at the defendant’s store. Before filing the complaint against the store, the plaintiff and his wife filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. In the filing, the plaintiff stated that he had no “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of any nature” and denied having any “other property of any kind not already listed.” Some time thereafter, the plaintiff amended the bankruptcy petition to list the alleged claim against the store as a potential claim of an unliquidated nature. As for an estimated value of the claim, the plaintiff listed $15,000. The plaintiff chose this amount based on section 12-1001(h)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides an exemption for a debtor to receive payment not exceeding $15,000 on a claim for personal injury to the debtor.

The bankruptcy court discharged the plaintiff’s petition before the plaintiff initiated the lawsuit against the store. In response, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims, stating that the plaintiff had no standing to sue because the rights to the claim belonged to the bankruptcy trustee. In response, the plaintiff stated in an affidavit that at the time he filed for bankruptcy, he was unsure whether he would pursue legal action against the store. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel.

Continue reading

In a recent case decided by the Sixth Division of the Illinois Appellate Court, the plaintiff alleged that he suffered injuries as a result of an improperly maintained pothole in the roadway. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was driving his vehicle along a roadway maintained by the City of Chicago (“the City”) when a sinkhole opened up in the road. He also claimed that his entire vehicle fell into the sinkhole. During his deposition, the plaintiff testified that only the rear portion of his vehicle sank into the sinkhole. Following the accident, the plaintiff contacted 911 and was transported to a hospital to treat his various injuries. The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that his vehicle was impounded by the City and later destroyed without a proper provision of notice.

The plaintiff asserted two causes of action against the City. First, he claimed that the city was negligent in its maintenance of the roadway and that it failed to repair defects that it knew or should have known posed a risk of harm to the public.

Second, he asserted a claim for Res Ipsa Loquitur. This legal principle states that the occurrence of the accident implies that negligence was responsible, meaning the accident could not have happened but for a negligent act. The Latin phrase means “the thing speaks for itself.” In an appropriately pleaded Res Ipsa Loquitur claim, the plaintiff is able to assert a rebuttable presumption that the defendant acted negligently. There are three elements the plaintiff must prove:  that the accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence, that the device that caused the injury to occur was under the defendant’s control, and that there is no other plausible explanation for the accident.

Continue reading

In a recent case, the plaintiff filed an appeal after a trial court issued an order granting summary judgment for the defendants in the plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that in December 2012, the defendant was building a gasoline station on land owned by another defendant. The plaintiff contended that he was walking along a sidewalk near the intersection where construction was taken place when he “suddenly and without warning fell violently into a hole, sustaining serious injuries.”

The complaint also alleged that one of the defendants controlled the construction site and owed him a duty to use reasonable care in maintaining and securing the premises to ensure that pedestrians passing by the area or through the area would be safe. The allegations also contended that the defendants failed to conduct appropriate inspections of the premises to ensure that it was safe, failed to place warning signs to identify the hole, and failed to repair the hole. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant in charge of the site knew or should have known that pedestrians would be passing through the area and that the hole posed an unreasonable danger to their safety.

In responding to the complaint, the defendants admitted that they owned the site and that they were conducting construction activities, but they argued that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to his injuries. The doctrine of contributory negligence allows a jury to consider whether the plaintiff’s negligent conduct contributed to the ultimate harm. In Illinois, if the jury concludes that the plaintiff’s negligence caused 51% or more of his or her injuries, the plaintiff will be barred from recovering any damages from the defendants. Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff was negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout while traversing the sidewalk, by voluntarily walking through the construction site, by failing to appreciate the open and obvious danger that the hole posed, and by trespassing on the construction site. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on these contentions, which the trial court granted.

Continue reading

In Atchley v. University of Chicago Medical Center, the plaintiff was a delivery driver who was making a delivery of two pallets of beverages at the defendant’s premises. The plaintiff backed his truck up to the dock space, but he soon discovered that the dock lever that would raise the dock to the same level as the truck bed to create a ramp was not working. No other docks with levers were available, so the plaintiff used the air suspension system in his truck to lower the bed as much as possible. A small gap remained, however. The plaintiff then used the motorized pallet jack to unload the pallets, but the jack got stuck in the gap. The plaintiff obtained a steel dolly that he then used to try and free the jack. In the process, he fell and fractured his ankle.

The plaintiff and his wife filed a negligence and premises liability claim against the defendant. The defendant raised contributory negligence as a defense to the plaintiffs’ claims in its answer. The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the lower court granted, based on its conclusion that the danger presented by the gap was open and obvious and that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. It also concluded that the malfunctioning lever was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff appealed, and the reviewing court ultimately reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant. First, the appellate court analyzed whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. There are four factors a court will consider in determining whether a party owes another party a duty. The court evaluates the reasonable foreseeability of the resulting injury, the likelihood the injury would occur, the magnitude of the defendant’s burden in preventing the injury from happening, and the consequences that could result from placing a burden on the defendant. For a condition or potential injury to be deemed open and obvious, a reasonable person in the victim’s position with ordinary judgment, perception, and intelligence must be able to recognize both the risk and the condition.

Continue reading

In Perez v. Heffron, the mother of a boy who drowned in a swimming pool accident appealed an order for the trial court granting summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. The background facts are as follows. In June 2013, the defendant conducted a yard sale at his home in Bartlett. A man visited the sale and brought his son Edgar with him, who was nearly three years old. His sister and their parents were also at the yard sale, along with his niece, who was two.

Photographs admitted at trial showed the side, front, and backyard of the defendant’s home on the day the accident occurred. There were sale items located on the ground and lying on tables displayed in the front yard. There was a cement walkway that led to the backyard through a side yard that was narrow. The backyard featured an above-ground swimming pool constructed of durable material and anchored permanently. On the side of the pool that faced the walkway, there were several hoses and filters attached to the pool. There was a deck that provided access to the pool next to the side of the pool, with stairs from the deck leading to a rear patio setting.

To obstruct shoppers from getting to the deck stairs, the defendant placed a clothes rack in front of it. There was a plastic solar cover over the pool. The defendant testified that a child standing on the deck would not be able to see water in the pool through the solar cover.

Continue reading

In the recent case of Barr v. Frausto, et al., the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, including an individual and the City of Joliet, alleging that he suffered injuries when he stepped into a hole located on a grass-covered area and fell. According to his complaint, the plaintiff was on a walk with his wife during a morning in July 2010. He was wearing running shoes and recalls traversing the paved sidewalk. A woman walking her dog was also walking on this sidewalk, approaching from the opposite direction. To make room to pass the woman and her dog, the man stepped onto a grass-covered parkway in front of the home owned by the individual defendant in the lawsuit. When he stepped onto the grassy area, the defendant fell and sustained injuries to his leg.

The plaintiff asserted a claim for negligent property maintenance against the homeowner and the city. In response to the complaint, both defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted after hearing oral arguments from all of the parties. In regard to the homeowner, the lower court concluded that she did not owe the plaintiff a duty to prevent others from suffering harm on the property owned by the city. The plaintiff appealed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the city.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the city offered substantial evidence, including photographs, depositions, and the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert witness. In his deposition, the plaintiff testified to numerous facts regarding his familiarity with the portion of the walkway on which he was injured. For example, the plaintiff had lived in the area for roughly six years, claimed he was familiar with the region, and stated that his wife and he walked or biked the same route roughly once per week. He also testified that he had never seen anyone performing construction or maintenance in the area where the hole was located.

Continue reading