Practice Area

Kane County Slip and Fall Lawyer

Premises cases are won and lost on notice: did the property owner know about the hazard, or should they have? That question is why these cases have to be investigated early, while the evidence still exists. We handle premises claims in Aurora and throughout Kane County and the surrounding collar counties.

What has to be proven

A property owner is not automatically responsible because someone fell. Illinois abolished the old distinction between invitees and licensees; the Premises Liability Act now provides that the duty owed to entrants on the land “is that of reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the premises or acts done or omitted on them.” 740 ILCS 130/2.

In practice, a claim generally requires showing that:

• a dangerous condition existed on the property;
• the owner or occupier created it, or knew about it, or should have known about it;
• they failed to correct it or to warn about it; and
• the condition caused the injury.

The second element is where most cases are actually decided. Proving that a store should have known usually means proving how long the hazard was there — and that comes from video, sweep logs, and inspection records rather than from the injured person’s testimony.

The evidence that decides these cases — and how fast it disappears

• Surveillance video — frequently overwritten within days on a rolling loop
• The incident report the store prepared the day you fell
• Inspection logs and sweep sheets
• Prior complaints or similar incidents at the same location
• Photographs of the condition before it is cleaned up or repaired
• Weather records, in outdoor and snow‑and‑ice cases

Snow and ice

Illinois treats snow and ice differently from other premises hazards. Under the natural accumulation rule, a property owner generally has no duty to remove a natural accumulation of ice or snow, and no duty to warn of one. The Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule in Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (2010), and declined to create an exception even for a common carrier.

The cases that succeed are unnatural accumulation cases — ice created or aggravated by something the owner did or failed to do. A defective downspout that discharges across a walkway. A plowed pile placed where it melts and refreezes on the sidewalk. A roof that drains onto an entrance. A parking lot graded so that runoff collects at the door.

There is also a statute to reckon with. The Snow and Ice Removal Act protects an owner of residential property who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from an abutting sidewalk from liability absent willful or wanton misconduct. 745 ILCS 75/2. Its limits matter as much as its coverage: it applies to residential property, and it applies to removal efforts. In Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., 2016 IL 120394, the Illinois Supreme Court held unanimously that the Act does not immunize an owner from claims that an icy condition resulted from “an otherwise negligent failure to maintain the premises.” A defective drainage system is not a snow removal effort, and the statute does not shield it.

Open and obvious conditions

Expect the defense to argue that whatever you fell on was open and obvious. Illinois follows section 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, adopted in Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990), which recognizes that a landowner can still be liable where harm should be anticipated despite the obviousness of a condition — the classic examples being a distraction or a situation where the person has no practical choice but to encounter the hazard. The distraction exception is real but narrow: in Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998, the court held that a self‑created distraction is not enough, and that “some circumstance must exist that requires the plaintiff to divert his or her attention.”

Comparative fault

Being partly at fault does not end an Illinois premises case. Damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault, and recovery is barred only if that share exceeds 50%. 735 ILCS 5/2‑1116.

Questions we are asked

I fell in a store. Do I have a case?

It depends on notice — whether the store created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it. That is usually answered by video and inspection records rather than by anything you observed, which is why getting a preservation letter out quickly matters more than almost anything else you can do.

I slipped on ice in a parking lot. Is that a case in Illinois?

It can be, but not for a purely natural accumulation. The question is whether the ice was created or worsened by something the owner did — defective drainage, negligent plowing, a roof or downspout discharging onto the walking surface. Those are the cases that proceed.

The store says the hazard was obvious. Does that defeat my claim?

Not automatically. Illinois recognizes that an owner may still be liable where harm should be anticipated despite an obvious condition — for example, where the person was distracted by something the circumstances required them to attend to, or had no reasonable alternative but to encounter it.

I didn’t report the fall right away. Is it too late?

Not necessarily, though it makes the case harder and makes speed more important. Call as soon as you can — there may still be video, and there may be maintenance records that establish notice regardless of what was reported.

How long do I have to file?

Generally two years for personal injury in Illinois, 735 ILCS 5/13‑202 — but only one year if the property belongs to a local governmental body such as a city, a school district, or a park district. 745 ILCS 10/8‑101. That distinction catches people.