Slip and Fall
in Illinois.
Understand the questions this claim type raises, the records worth organizing and the scope of available state-specific source checks.
The background sections describe U.S. claim concepts. They are not verified statements of every Illinois requirement.
Rules relevant to this claim type
A filing period is not a countdown from a date alone. The cause of action, defendant, discovery, notice rules and exceptions matter. These records explain their scope; they do not calculate your deadline.
General personal injury filing period
Section 13-202 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides a general two-year period after accrual for actions for injury to the person, with exceptions in the statutory text.
Scope: General personal injury background. Medical malpractice and other special claims require separate provisions.
- The statutory text includes special exceptions and tolling provisions.
- Accrual, public entities, minors and other facts require separate examination.
Official places to continue
- Illinois General Assembly — Code of Civil Procedure ↗
- USA.gov — Illinois government and agencies ↗
- U.S. Department of Labor — State workers’ compensation officials ↗
A resource link is a starting point. It does not verify every statement or establish that a particular rule applies. See our source and review policy.
Understanding this claim type
Slip and fall cases — part of the broader premises liability category — are among the most common personal injury claims and also among the hardest to prove. The central question is usually not whether you fell, but whether the property owner knew about the hazard and had a reasonable opportunity to fix it.
Property owners owe different levels of care depending on the visitor's status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser) and the state's premises liability rules. A customer who slips on a wet floor in a grocery store is owed the highest duty of care; a trespasser is owed very little.
The 'open and obvious' defense is the most common way these claims are defeated — the property owner argues the hazard was so visible that any reasonable person would have avoided it. Evidence that the hazard was hard to see, that the owner had prior notice, or that the area was poorly maintained weakens this defense.
Questions and records to organize
These are general preparation topics. Their relevance depends on the facts and applicable law.
- Notice — did the property owner know or should they have known about the hazard?
- Open and obvious defense — the owner claims the hazard was visible
- Surveillance footage — often overwritten within days if not preserved
- Incident reports — getting a copy at the time of the fall is critical
- Comparative fault — the owner argues the visitor should have been more careful
- Lighting, signage, and maintenance records as evidence