2024 IL App (1st) 230582
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiff Roberta Ruda slipped and fell on a cherry or cherry pit in the produce section of a Jewel Food Stores (Jewel-Osco) in Deerfield, Illinois.
- The incident occurred near a cherry display, and store employees acknowledged that cherry debris on the floor was a recurring problem when cherries were on display.
- Plaintiff suffered significant injuries, requiring surgery, hospital stays, and ongoing therapy.
- Jewel had a store policy of hourly sweeps for floor debris, but a stipulation in the case rendered the documentary evidence of a sweep at the time of the fall inadmissible, resulting in a two-hour unexplained gap.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the store, finding Ruda failed to show actual or constructive notice of the hazard.
- Plaintiff appealed, challenging the grant of summary judgment and arguing the store was on constructive notice due to the recurring hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive notice (recurring hazard) | Cherry debris on floor is recurring/foreseeable; store had duty | No evidence hazard present long enough; safety procedures adequate | Evidence raised fact issue; summary judgment reversed |
| Adequacy of safety sweeps | Two-hour gap in sweeps means hazard could have existed undetected | Policy requires checks, so staff would have noticed debris | Two-hour gap undermines defense; fact issue exists |
| Applicability of precedent (Perminas, Tafoya-Cruz) | Perminas supports liability where hazard is recurrent and known | Tafoya-Cruz distinguishes facts/law; no direct knowledge in this case | Perminas relevant; Tafoya-Cruz distinguishable |
| Admissibility of evidence (stipulation re: sweeps) | Sweep log evidence inadmissible by stipulation, supporting gap | Other staff could have cleaned hazard; gap not critical | Stipulation controls; unaccounted two-hour gap |
Key Cases Cited
- Perminas v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 60 Ill. 2d 469 (Ill. 1975) (business can be liable for failure to address recurring, foreseeable hazards from customer conduct)
- Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 770 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2014) (constructive notice may be shown by recurring incidents or length of time condition existed)
- Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2016 IL 118984 (Ill. 2016) (summary judgment only appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact)