Slip and Fall Basics and the Feasibility of Summary Judgment

At The Miller Law Group, we often represent clients who are sued because someone slips and falls on a foreign substance on their premises. These types of negligence lawsuits are commonplace especially in high traffic locations such as hospitals and restaurants. Even though they are commonplace, that does not necessarily mean that it is easy for a plaintiff to prove the business owner was negligent.  

There are three ways that a business can be held liable for a slip and fall on a foreign substance. The first way is where the business was responsible for placing the substance on the floor. For example in the context of a restaurant, this would occur when a waitress spills coffee on the floor which causes a customer to slip. 

 The second way is where the business has actual knowledge that the substance was on the floor. For example, this time a customer of the restaurant spills coffee on the floor next to their table. The waitress sees the customer spill and observes the coffee on the floor. Now the restaurant has actual knowledge of the foreign substance. 

The third way is where the business has constructive knowledge of the substance on the floor. This typically arises where the substance has been on the floor for a sufficient period of time that the business should have discovered it. All three of these scenarios may support liability against a business for a slip and fall on a foreign substance. 

These types of negligence cases are often ripe for a motion for summary judgment because it can be challenging not only to identify how the substance came to be on the floor but also to establish how long it was there or that someone knew about it. We recently defended a multi-national corporation involving a slip and fall at a medical clinic located in Chicago. We filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client which was granted by a Cook County Judge. 

In that case, the plaintiff was at a medical clinic when she slipped and fell on what she believed to be water while using the guest bathroom. The plaintiff had no information regarding the source of the water. For instance, she did not know if someone spilled water, if water came from someone drying their hands or if the water came from the sink or the toilet. The source of the water was completely unknown. 

In addition, the plaintiff had no information that anyone from the medical clinic knew there was water on the floor to establish actual knowledge. Moreover, she had no idea how long the water was on the floor. It could have been there for as short as one minute from the last guest who had used the bathroom or as long as an hour. There was no evidence one way or the other. Thus, plaintiff could not establish constructive notice either. All of these arguments warranted and justified the entry of summary judgment on behalf of our client. 

In short, just because someone slips and falls on a foreign substance does not necessarily mean a business is negligent and should be held liable. In all of these cases, it is important to evaluate whether or not a motion for summary judgment is a viable option because as demonstrated above, a defendant can win a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case. 

Author: Elizabeth Boratto