2022 IL App (2d) 210209
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiff slipped and fell on January 15, 2018 at ~10:00 p.m. at a CITGO-operated store (1015 10th Street, North Chicago) and sued for negligence.
- Original complaint (filed within the 2-year limitations period) alleged she slipped on unremoved ice while exiting the store.
- Trial court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice for failing to allege an unnatural accumulation of ice, and granted leave to amend; plaintiff then filed an amended complaint alleging she slipped on an unnatural accumulation of water inside the store while shopping.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under section 2-619(a)(5) as time-barred, arguing it did not relate back to the original complaint because it alleged a different occurrence, location, and causative condition.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, finding the amended allegations changed material facts and duties and would require different investigation; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint relates back under 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) so it is not time-barred | The amended claim "grew out of the same occurrence"; same date, time, address, injury type (slip-and-fall) and legal theory, so relation-back applies under Porter’s "sufficiently-close-relationship" test | The amended complaint alleges a different occurrence (water inside while shopping vs. ice outside while exiting), raising different substantive issues and evidence; therefore it does not relate back and is barred by the statute of limitations | Affirmed: amended complaint did not relate back because it alleged different material facts (substance and location) and implicated different duties/defenses |
| Whether defendants were put on adequate notice by the original complaint so they could investigate the amended theory without unfair surprise | Original notice of a slip-and-fall was sufficient to prompt inquiry into the incident and discover the actual cause/location | The original complaint put defendants on notice only of an outside ice-related accident; the amended inside-water theory would require materially different investigation and witnesses (e.g., refrigeration vs. snow-removal), so defendants lacked proper notice | Affirmed: original pleading did not give defendants notice of the different cause/location; amendment would have surprised defendants and changed defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (2008) (adopted the sufficiently-close-relationship test for relation-back under section 2-616(b))
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (2010) (explains natural-accumulation rule for snow/ice/water and limits duty to remove or warn)
- Zeh v. Wheeler, 111 Ill. 2d 266 (1986) (amendment changing property/location did not relate back where occurrences were different)
- Yette v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., 263 Ill. App. 3d 422 (1994) (amendment alleging building design caused runoff did not relate back to original sidewalk-ice theory)
- Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 574 (1945) (relation-back where amended claim added statutory violation but arose from same fatal incident)