Heider v. DJG Pizza, Inc., 138 N.E.3d 934

Background

Plaintiff Michael Heider slipped on a damp area of painted concrete just inside the single main entrance of JL’s Pizza on March 13, 2015, fracturing his leg and requiring multiple surgeries.
He had been seated about 10–12 feet from the entrance for ~1 hour 40 minutes prior to leaving; he and coworkers testified they did not see rain, spills, or employees mopping or otherwise create the dampness during that time.
The bar had a small carpeted mat near the interior door; after the fall the mat was observed shifted to the right and both the mat and a roughly 12"×9" floor area appeared damp. No one testified to how the water got there.
Owner Gagner had bought the business the day before the incident, had no formal written floor‑maintenance policy, and could not say whether the mat had been moved or inspected earlier that day.
Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall and that there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant.
The appellate court reversed, holding plaintiff presented some circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer constructive notice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff produced evidence that the dangerous condition (dampness) existed long enough for constructive notice	Heider: he and coworkers were within view of the entry for ~1 hr 40 min and saw no rain, spills, or cleaning, so dampness likely existed throughout that period	JL’s Pizza: no direct evidence how long water was present; plaintiff cannot identify cause, so no constructive notice	Held: plaintiff produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of fact on constructive notice; summary judgment improper
Whether plaintiff had to identify the precise cause or who put the water there to survive summary judgment	Heider: need not identify source; circumstantial evidence can establish constructive notice	JL’s Pizza: absence of direct proof of how/when water arrived is fatal	Held: direct proof not required; circumstantial evidence may defeat summary judgment if inferences are probable
Whether a business owner must have a written/time‑based inspection policy to be liable for constructive notice	Heider: need not rely on written policy; observation window supports inference	JL’s Pizza: any supposed “continuous inspection” policy is informal and insufficient to impose a duty to inspect constantly	Held: no general duty to inspect continuously; absence of written policy does not preclude constructive‑notice inference based on facts
Whether the wet mat concealed the hazard, precluding constructive notice	Heider: he asserts slip occurred on concrete, not the mat; concealment is speculative	JL’s Pizza: mat may have concealed dampness, making it undetectable on reasonable inspection	Held: concealment theory speculative here; no evidence mat would have hidden the dampness from reasonable inspection

Key Cases Cited

Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill.2d 456 (Ill. 1975) (adopting Restatement § 343 duty framework for land possessors)
Lombardo v. Reliance Elevator Co., 315 Ill. App.3d 111 (Ill. App. 2000) (constructive notice includes conditions discoverable by reasonable inspection)
Hayes v. Bailey, 80 Ill. App.3d 1027 (Ill. App. 1980) (liability for slipping on foreign substance arises when proprietor caused it, had actual knowledge, or had constructive notice)
Wiegman v. Hitch‑Inn Post of Libertyville, Inc., 308 Ill. App.3d 789 (Ill. App. 1999) (evidence that water existed for hours supported submission of constructive notice to jury)
Smolek v. K.W. Landscaping, 266 Ill. App.3d 226 (Ill. App. 1994) (no constructive notice where dangerous condition was concealed and would not be discovered by ordinary care)
Kolakowski v. Voris, 83 Ill.2d 388 (Ill. 1980) (summary‑judgment evidence must be construed against movant and in favor of opponent)