PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — ILLINOIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence (Premises Liability)
6. Count II — Negligent Maintenance of Property
7. Count III — Failure to Warn
8. Count IV — Willful and Wanton Conduct
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. Prayer for Relief
12. State-Specific Notes
13. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY, ILLINOIS

[ORDINAL] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff"), is an individual residing in [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Illinois.

2. Defendant, [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant"), is [an individual residing in / a corporation organized under the laws of / a limited liability company formed under the laws of] [STATE], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / manager] of the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Illinois [ZIP CODE] (the "Premises").

3.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, Article VI, § 9, as the Circuit Court has original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.

5. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because [the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the cause of action occurred in this county / Defendant resides in this county / Defendant conducts business in this county].

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / controlled] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], Illinois [ZIP CODE].

7. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

8. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous and hazardous condition, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL].

9. Defendant had [actual / constructive] notice of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition through [DESCRIBE].

☐ The dangerous condition existed for a sufficient period of time that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered and remedied it.

☐ The dangerous condition was part of a recurring pattern that Defendant knew or should have known about.

10. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious, and was not known to Plaintiff at the time of the incident.

11. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT] and sustained severe injuries.

5. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

12. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 11 above.

13. Under 740 ILCS 130/, Defendant owed Plaintiff, as a lawful entrant on the Premises, a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances regarding the state of the Premises.

14. Defendant breached this duty of care by one or more of the following acts or omissions:

☐ Failing to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;

☐ Failing to inspect the Premises for hazardous conditions;

☐ Failing to correct, repair, or remedy the dangerous condition;

☐ Failing to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition;

☐ Failing to implement reasonable safety measures;

☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OR OMISSIONS].

15. Defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6. COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

16. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

17. Defendant had a duty to properly maintain the Premises, including but not limited to [SPECIFY MAINTENANCE DUTIES].

18. Defendant negligently maintained the Premises by [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE FAILURES].

19. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT III — FAILURE TO WARN

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

21. Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

22. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious, and Defendant had a duty to warn Plaintiff of its existence.

23. Defendant failed to provide adequate warnings, including but not limited to [failure to post warning signs / failure to barricade the area / failure to use cones or markers].

24. Defendant's failure to warn was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

8. COUNT IV — WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

26. Defendant's conduct was willful and wanton in that Defendant acted with an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiff, specifically by [DESCRIBE WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT, e.g., ignoring repeated safety violations, failing to act despite knowledge of multiple prior similar incidents, deliberately disregarding code enforcement orders].

27. By reason of Defendant's willful and wanton conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

9. DAMAGES

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following injuries and damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Reasonable and necessary past and future medical expenses, including hospitalization, surgery, physician visits, physical therapy, prescription medications, diagnostic testing, and rehabilitative services.

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future loss of earnings, wages, and diminished earning capacity.

c. Pain and Suffering: Past and future physical pain and suffering.

d. Emotional Distress: Past and future emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and related psychological harm.

e. Disability: Past and future disability and physical impairment.

f. Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Normal Life: Past and future loss of a normal life and diminished quality of life.

h. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Plaintiff's spouse has been deprived of the society, companionship, and conjugal relations of Plaintiff.]

10. JURY DEMAND

29. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of twelve (12) persons on all issues.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of $[50,000 / amount required by local rule] together with:

1. Compensatory damages according to proof at trial;
2. Prejudgment interest as permitted by law;
3. Costs of suit;
4. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
ARDC No. [NUMBER]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY], Illinois [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

12. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

Abolition of Invitee/Licensee Distinction. Illinois abolished the distinction between invitees and licensees under 740 ILCS 130/ (Premises Liability Act). The duty owed to all lawful entrants is that of reasonable care under the circumstances. The distinction between lawful entrants and trespassers is preserved.

Open and Obvious Doctrine. Under 740 ILCS 130/2, a property owner has no duty to warn of or protect against conditions that are known to the entrant, open and obvious, or can reasonably be expected to be discovered by the entrant. This is a significant defense in Illinois premises liability cases.

Modified Comparative Fault (50% Bar). Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred. Illinois uses the "50% bar" rule (not the "51% bar" as in some states).

Statute of Limitations. Two (2) years from the date of injury. 735 ILCS 5/13-202.

Government Property — Tort Immunity Act. Claims against local government entities are governed by 745 ILCS 10/ (Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act). A written notice must be filed within one (1) year of injury, and suit must be commenced within one (1) year after notice is denied. Various immunities apply, with exceptions for willful and wanton conduct.

No Statutory Cap on Compensatory Damages. Illinois does not impose statutory caps on compensatory damages in personal injury cases (caps on non-economic damages were struck down in Lebron v. Gottlieb Mem'l Hosp., 930 N.E.2d 895 (Ill. 2010)).

Punitive Damages. Punitive damages are available under limited circumstances and require proof of willful and wanton, fraudulent, or other aggravated conduct.

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 740 ILCS 130/ — Premises Liability Act
• 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 — Comparative Fault
• 735 ILCS 5/13-202 — Statute of Limitations
• 745 ILCS 10/ — Local Governmental Tort Immunity Act
• Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil, No. 120.00 et seq. (Premises Liability)
• Lebron v. Gottlieb Mem'l Hosp., 930 N.E.2d 895 (Ill. 2010)
• Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill.2d 132 (1990)