What Is a Hazardous Condition in a Slip and Fall Case?

Slip and fall accidents often result in severe injuries, but not every accident leads to a viable legal claim. A central question in these cases is whether the fall occurred due to a hazardous condition that the property owner should have addressed. Understanding what defines a hazardous condition is key to determining liability in a slip and fall case.

At John J. Malm & Associates, we our top-rated Illinois premises liability lawyers investigate slip and fall cases for clients to identify whether hazardous conditions contributed to the accident. This blog explores what a hazardous condition is and provides real-life examples.

Defining a Hazardous Condition

A hazardous condition is any unsafe or dangerous condition on a property that poses a foreseeable risk of injury to people on the property. Under the Premises Liability Act (740 ILCS 130/1), property owners in Illinois have a duty to maintain safe premises, and when they fail to do so, they may be held liable for injuries that result from dangerous conditions.

Common hazardous conditions include:

• Wet or slippery floors
• Uneven surfaces, such as cracked or crumbling sidewalks
• Poor lighting in areas where people walk
• Obstacles or debris in walkways
• Snow or ice accumulation in entrances or walkways

Illinois courts consider several factors when determining whether a condition was hazardous and to hold the property owner liable for the hazardous condition on the property, including whether the hazard was “open and obvious” and whether the property owner took reasonable steps to remedy or warn of the danger.

What Does Not Constitute a Hazardous Condition?

While many conditions may seem hazardous, Illinois courts have ruled in certain cases that a specific condition does not meet the threshold of hazard, thereby exempting the property owner from liability. Here are examples of conditions that do not constitute a hazardous condition under Illinois law:

1. Tracked-in Water
   • In Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 39 (2009), a plaintiff slipped on tracked-in rainwater near the entrance of a grocery store. The court ruled that the grocery store was not liable because the water was the product of natural accumulation. The court held that property owners are not required to remove every drop of water in high-traffic areas during rainy weather. As such, tracked-in water alone may not constitute a hazardous condition..
   • Key Takeaway: Tracked-in water from weather conditions does not always meet the legal definition of a hazard, especially if the danger is obvious to visitors.
2. Minor Elevation Changes
   • Case Law: In St. Martin v. First Hospitality Group, Inc. (2014), the court found that a minor change in the elevation between two areas of a sidewalk did not constitute a hazardous condition. The plaintiff tripped over a difference in height of less than two inches, but the court held that minor variations in walking surfaces are to be expected and do not necessarily create a dangerous condition.
   • Key Takeaway: Small variations in walking surfaces (typically less than two inches) are generally not considered hazardous unless they significantly increase the risk of injury.
3. Naturally Accumulated Snow and Ice
   • Illinois Statute: Under the Snow and Ice Removal Act (745 ILCS 75/2), residential property owners are not liable for injuries resulting from natural accumulations of snow and ice. In Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (2010), the court upheld that naturally occurring snow and ice on a train platform did not create a hazardous condition, as the CTA had no duty to clear all naturally accumulating snow. Property owners are only liable if they undertake snow removal efforts negligently.
   • Key Takeaway: Illinois law protects property owners from liability for injuries caused by naturally accumulated snow and ice, unless there are extenuating circumstances like negligence in snow removal.

What Constitutes a Hazardous Condition?

While certain conditions are not legally considered hazardous, many other situations give rise to actionable claims. Below are examples of conditions that courts have found to be hazardous:

1. Greasy Floors Without Warning Signs
   • Case Law: In Newsom-Bogan v. Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc. (2011), a customer slipped on a greasy floor near the trash can of a Wendy’s restaurant. The court found that the plaintiff’s testimony created a triable issue for a jury to determine whether the greasy floor was the cause of her fall and whether the Wendy’s manager failed to discover the grease on the floor.
2. Structural Defects Combined with Weather Hazards
   • Case Law: In Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., 2016 IL 120394, the Illinois Supreme Court found a property management company liable for a slip and fall on ice that had accumulated on a defective walkway. Although the ice was naturally occurring, the walkway’s defects exacerbated the hazard, and the management company was found negligent for failing to repair the surface.
   • Key Takeaway: Structural defects that combine with weather-related hazards, such as ice, can create an actionable hazardous condition. Property owners are expected to address defects that increase the risk of injury.

How to Prove a Hazardous Condition After a Slip and Fall

To establish that a hazardous condition existed, an injured party must demonstrate:

1. Existence of a Dangerous Condition: The property contained a defect or danger that posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
2. Knowledge of the Hazard: The property owner knew or should have known about the condition but failed to correct or warn visitors.
3. Injury Caused by the Condition: The injury must be directly linked to the hazardous condition on the property.

The Role of Property Owners When it Comes to Hazardous Conditions on Their Property

Property owners are required to take reasonable steps to maintain their premises. They are not expected to eliminate every potential danger, but they are obligated to act when a condition poses a foreseeable risk. This includes:

• Cleaning up spills or placing warning signs when necessary
• Fixing structural defects, such as broken tiles or uneven walkways
• Providing adequate lighting for customers using their walkways

“Property owners have a duty to ensure that their premises are safe for visitors. While some conditions may not always pose an obvious threat, others, like structural defects or improperly managed hazards, can create serious risks. At John J. Malm & Associates, we thoroughly investigate every detail of a slip and fall case to hold negligent property owners accountable.” — John J. Malm, Naperville slip and fall attorney

Contact the Illinois Slip and Fall Attorneys at John J. Malm & Associates

Determining whether a condition is hazardous in a slip and fall case is a key factor in proving liability. While Illinois courts have ruled that some conditions, such as tracked-in water or minor elevation changes, may not always constitute hazards, many other situations do give rise to actionable claims. Property owners are responsible for addressing dangerous conditions in a timely and reasonable manner.

If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, contact the award-winning Illinois injury lawyers at John J. Malm & Associates for a free consultation. Our team has the experience and expertise to investigate hazardous conditions, hold negligent property owners accountable, and secure the compensation you deserve.