Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

We hate to admit it… but winter is edging closer and closer every day. The Chicago personal injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll would like to discuss a new Illinois First District Appellate Court case, Hornacek v. Fifth Avenue Property Management, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1052 (1st Dist. 2011), which summarizes the duty of landowners (and snow removal companies) when dealing with snow and ice accumulation.

In Hornacek, plaintiff sued defendants Fifth Avenue and Rice, after she slipped and fell on an unnatural accumulation of ice in a parking lot owned by Fifth Avenue, causing her painful injuries. Defendant Rice was the owner of the snow removal company contracted to remove snow at the property. At their discovery depositions, Ms. Hornacek and a co-worker testified that an unnatural accumulation of snow existed on the north side of the building where her accident occurred. Her co-worker further testified that "at times an enormous pile of snow" would be plowed against the north wall of the building. 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1052, *26. Defendant Rice admitted at his deposition that water "always" tended to pool at the north side of the building, where Plaintiff fell. Witnesses also testified that they had complained to Fifth Avenue about the accumulation of snow on north side of building.

Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment requesting the court to dismiss the case in their favor. Fifth Avenue argued there was no evidence to support plaintiff's claim that she fell on an unnatural accumulation of ice. Rice claimed the duty he owed plaintiff was defined by the terms of his contract with Fifth Avenue, and that he did not breach that contract since the contract did not require him to monitor the parking lot for snow or ice accumulations. The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed.

The First District Appellate Court reversed and held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the ice upon which she fell was caused by an unnatural accumulation created by Rice. It also held that as the landowner, Fifth Avenue had a duty to provide a safe means of travel for pedestrians between the parking lot and the building since it elected to have snow removed from the parking lot.

What does this mean in non-legal speak? First of all, summary judgment is a drastic way for a court to dispose of a case. When a court grants summary judgment, it finds that the plaintiff cannot present sufficient evidence to prove his or her case before a jury. The Plaintiff does not get his or her day in court.

For a plaintiff to recover in a slip-and-fall case involving ice, snow, or water, the plaintiff must show "that the accumulation of ice, snow or water is due to unnatural causes and that the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition." Gilberg v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 126 Ill. App. 3d 554, 557 (1st Dist. 1984). Typically, courts will not hold Illinois landowners liable for the failure to remove natural accumulations of snow or ice. Ziencina v. County of Cook, 188 Ill. 2d 1, 10-11 (1999). However, once a landowner elects to undertake snow and ice removal on his property, the landowner has the duty to exercise ordinary care in doing so. Erasmus v. Chicago Housing Authority, 86 Ill. App. 3d 142, 145 (1st Dist. 1980). It is also the duty of the landowner to provide a reasonably safe way for people to get in and out of property. Snow removal contractors have a duty not to "negligently remove snow by creating or aggravating an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice." McBride v. Taxman Corp., 327 Ill. App. 3d 992, 996 (1st Dist. 2002).

Snowy and icy conditions must be treated with due care. If you work in a building that does not properly deal with the accumulation of snow or ice, be sure to lodge complaints with management and make your concerns known. Although winter is not here yet, it will be soon. It is never too early to consider your safety.