Ishoo v. General Growth Properties, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 110919

Plaintiff Suzanna Ishoo slipped on a liquid in the Northbrook Court Mall and sued multiple defendants for negligence.
Plaintiff worked at Neiman Marcus at the mall and was injured February 9, 2007.
Defendants include Westcoast Estates, Millard Group, Valor Security; other named entities are owners/managers.
Plaintiff alleged four negligence theories: failure to maintain, failure to remove, failure to warn, and caused substance to be present.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Millard, Valor, and Westcoast Estates; plaintiff’s motion to reconsider denied; she appeals.
Plaintiff’s deposition and surrounding evidence show no liquid substance found on the floor when investigators inspected the area.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is evidence tying the liquid to defendants.	Ishoo argues a triable issue exists linking the liquid to defendants.	Defendants contend no evidence ties the liquid to them or shows notice.	No factual link shown; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the liquid.	Plaintiff asserts notice via housekeeping activities around 3:00–3:30 p.m.	Record shows escalator cleaning after 9 p.m.; no notice proven.	No actual or constructive notice shown.
Whether plaintiff's affidavit creates material issue requiring trial.	Affidavit places substance as Windex or cleaning solution causing fall.	Affidavit not supported by record facts tying defendants to the substance.	Affidavit does not raise genuine issue of material fact.

Kimbrough v. Jewel Cos., 92 Ill.App.3d 813 (Ill. App. 1981) (summary judgment where plaintiff doubts causation of fall)
Cochran v. George Sollitt Construction Co., 358 Ill.App.3d 865 (Ill. App. 2005) (constructive notice standards for dangerous conditions)
Pavlik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 323 Ill.App.3d 1060 (Ill. App. 2001) (length of time condition exists for constructive notice)