Madison County Team Secures Summary Judgment in a Premises Liability Cause of Action Removed to Federal Court

Madison County, Ill. (April 2, 2025) - Madison County Partners Nick Martin and Jarred Reed recently secured summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on behalf of a major retailer. The court determined that the store neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had notice of its existence.

The case arose when the plaintiff, while shopping at the store in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois, slipped on a clear substance on the floor. Moments before the incident, a third-party technician operating a floor scrubber had passed through the area. Multiple other shoppers traversed the same space without issue, and store employees were unaware of the presence of the substance. The plaintiff, who sustained a knee injury as a result of the incident, subsequently filed suit.

Lewis Brisbois successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the condition on the premises did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm, the store lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazard, and the alleged danger was open and obvious. The defense emphasized the plaintiff’s failure to establish the essential elements of a premises liability claim, which require proof that: (1) a condition on the property presented an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) the defendant knew or should have known of both the condition and the risk; (3) the defendant could reasonably expect that individuals on the property would fail to recognize or protect themselves from the danger; (4) the defendant was negligent in failing to address or warn of the hazard; (5) the plaintiff suffered an injury; and (6) the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of that injury. See Hope v. Hope, 398 Ill.App.3d 216, 219, 924 N.E.2d 581, 584 (4th Dist. 2010); Simich v. Edgewater Beach Apartments Corp., 368 Ill. App. 3d 394, 408, 857 N.E.2d 934, 945 (1st Dist. 2006); I.P.I. No. 120.08 (Civil 2011).

In response, the plaintiff contended that the store was negligent in causing the clear substance to be present on the floor and argued that they had constructive notice through the third-party technician operating the floor scrubber. The plaintiff further asserted that the substance remained on the floor long enough that the store, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered it and mitigated the risk. The court rejected these arguments in their entirety.

The court ultimately found no evidence that the store was responsible for the alleged hazardous condition or that the substance was directly related to the store’s business operations. Moreover, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish that the substance had been on the floor for a duration sufficient to impute actual or constructive notice to the store. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in the store’s favor, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.