Starbucks Sued in Illinois Slip and Fall

A woman has sued Starbucks and Target after allegedly suffering serious injuries in a slip and fall inside a Starbucks located within a Target store.

An Illinois woman has filed a personal injury lawsuit against a Starbucks located inside a Target store after allegedly slipping and falling on liquid on the floor. The plaintiff is suing both Starbucks and Target, alleging negligence and premises liability.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was lawfully on the property as a Starbucks customer on October 12 when she was allegedly caused to slip and fall because of liquid on the floor. She alleges that there were no warning signs alerting customers to the wet condition and that Starbucks employees failed to address or remedy the dangerous condition.

The plaintiff alleges that she suffered severe and permanent injuries, physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of normal life, disfigurement, impairment of her future earning capacity, an increased risk of future injury, and substantial medical expenses. She is seeking more than $50,000 in damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees.

Quick Answer:
A business may be liable for a slip and fall when an injured customer can establish that the property owner or operator owed a duty of reasonable care, breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused the injury. A key issue in many Illinois slip and fall cases is whether the business knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and had a reasonable opportunity to address it.

What Happened Inside the Starbucks?

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was shopping at or visiting the property and was lawfully inside the Starbucks when she slipped on liquid on the floor.

The plaintiff alleges that there were no “caution wet floor” signs or other warnings alerting customers to the dangerous condition. She further alleges that Starbucks employees negligently allowed the wet substance to remain on the floor without taking reasonable steps to clean it up or otherwise protect customers from the hazard.

A Wet Condition Allegedly Developed

According to the plaintiff, liquid was present on the floor in the Starbucks area, creating an alleged slip hazard.

No Warning Was Allegedly Provided

The plaintiff alleges that there were no wet-floor signs or other warnings to alert customers to the condition.

The Customer Slipped and Fell

The plaintiff alleges that she slipped on the liquid and suffered significant injuries as a result of the fall.

A Personal Injury Lawsuit Followed

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both Starbucks and Target, alleging negligence and premises liability and seeking compensation for her losses.

Slip and Fall Lawsuits in Illinois

A successful Illinois slip and fall lawsuit generally requires evidence establishing the elements of negligence. Depending on the circumstances, the injured person must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of the injury.

Duty of Care

The injured person must establish that the defendant owed a legal duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

Breach of Duty

The plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, such as by failing to address or adequately warn customers about a dangerous condition.

Causation and Injury

The plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s alleged breach was a proximate cause of the injury and that the plaintiff suffered legally compensable damages.

Did the Business Know About the Dangerous Condition?

One of the most important questions in a slip and fall case is whether the business had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Evidence may show that an employee knew about the liquid, that an employee caused or created the condition, or that the condition existed long enough that the business should have discovered and addressed it through reasonable inspection and maintenance practices.

In this case, the plaintiff alleges that Starbucks employees allowed the wet substance to remain on the floor without addressing or remedying the hazard. Whether Starbucks or Target knew or should have known about the condition is ultimately a question that depends on the evidence.

Important Evidence:
Surveillance footage, employee statements, incident reports, inspection records, photographs, cleaning logs, witness statements, and other business records can be important when determining how long a dangerous condition existed and whether the business knew or should have known about it.

Comparative Negligence in Illinois Slip and Fall Lawsuits

A defendant in a slip and fall lawsuit may argue that the injured person contributed to the accident. Illinois’ comparative negligence rule addresses situations in which both the plaintiff and defendant may have contributed to an injury.

Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, a plaintiff is barred from recovering damages when the trier of fact finds that the plaintiff’s contributory fault is more than 50% of the proximate cause of the injury. If the plaintiff’s contributory fault is 50% or less, the plaintiff is not barred from recovery, but the damages awarded are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault. 735 ILCS 5/2-1116

Plaintiff 25% at Fault

If a jury determines that the plaintiff was 25% responsible for the injury, the plaintiff’s damages would generally be reduced by 25%, assuming no other applicable issue prevents recovery.

Plaintiff 50% at Fault

A plaintiff who is found to be 50% at fault is not barred from recovery under the statute, although the damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault.

Plaintiff More Than 50% at Fault

A plaintiff found to be more than 50% at fault is barred from recovering damages under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116.

For example, a defendant may argue that a customer was looking at a cellphone immediately before falling. Evidence such as surveillance footage can then become particularly important because it may help establish what the customer was doing immediately before the fall and whether the defendant’s conduct was the primary cause of the injury.

Why Surveillance Footage Can Be Critical

Surveillance footage can provide objective evidence of the moments before, during, and after a slip and fall. In many cases, video may help establish how the accident happened, whether a dangerous condition was visible, how long the condition existed, whether employees walked through the area, and whether warnings were present.

Before the Fall

Video may show whether employees were aware of the liquid and how long the condition may have been present.

During the Fall

Footage may help show exactly how the customer fell and what caused the accident.

After the Fall

Video may show how employees responded and whether the dangerous condition was cleaned up or documented.

Preserve Evidence Quickly:
Businesses may routinely overwrite surveillance footage. After a serious slip and fall, prompt efforts to identify and preserve potentially relevant video and other records can be important.

What Damages Can Be Recovered in a Slip and Fall Case?

Depending on the circumstances, an injured person may seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, reduced future earning capacity, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of normal life, and other legally recoverable damages.

The plaintiff in this case alleges severe and permanent injuries, physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of normal life, disfigurement, impairment of her ability to earn money in the future, an increased risk of future injury, and significant medical expenses.

The amount of compensation available in a particular case depends on the evidence, the nature and severity of the injuries, the extent of medical treatment, the impact on the person’s life and employment, and whether liability can be established.

Don’t Assume a Slip and Fall Is Your Fault

Businesses and their insurers may argue that an injured customer should have seen the hazard or was otherwise responsible for the accident. But an injured person’s own conduct is only one part of the analysis. The surrounding circumstances, the condition of the property, the business’s knowledge, available warnings, employee conduct, and other evidence all may matter.

A thorough investigation can help determine whether the business knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and whether reasonable steps could have been taken to prevent the accident.

A Slip and Fall Can Have Serious Consequences

Medical treatment, lost income, permanent injuries, and pain and suffering can continue long after the accident itself.

Talk to a Springfield, IL Slip and Fall Attorney Today

Patel Law, PC represents the interests of Champaign and Springfield residents who have been injured in slip and fall accidents. If you have suffered an injury because of a dangerous condition on someone else’s premises, call our Springfield personal injury lawyers today to schedule an appointment so we can begin investigating your case right away.