Premises Liability Complaint - Illinois

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
14. Rule 222(b) Affidavit of Damages Sought

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. [Select the supported facts: The condition and its danger were not apparent to Plaintiff because [FACTS]. / Although [CONDITION] was visible, [SPECIFIC RISK] was not apparent, and Defendant should have anticipated harm because [FACTS, INCLUDING ANY FORESEEABLE DISTRACTION OR DELIBERATE ENCOUNTER].]

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. Defendant had a duty to warn Plaintiff of [SPECIFIC DANGER] because [FACTS SHOWING THE DANGER OR ITS FULL RISK WAS NOT APPARENT AND A WARNING WAS REASONABLY REQUIRED].

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. Defendant's conduct caused the injuries and losses alleged below.

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.

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. The operative text of 740 ILCS 130/2 requires reasonable care under the circumstances. Its separate open-and-obvious no-duty language appears only in the version marked unconstitutional by the General Assembly. Illinois common law still considers whether a danger was open and obvious, but that fact alone does not eliminate every duty. Examine the full risk, foreseeable harm, the burden of precautions, and any supported distraction or deliberate-encounter facts. Kraeplin v. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., 2026 IL App (2d) 250495, ¶¶ 27–28, 38.

Modified Comparative Fault (Bar Only Above 50%). Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. Recovery is barred only if the plaintiff's fault is MORE THAN 50% — a plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault still recovers a reduced award.

Spouse's Claim. Loss of consortium belongs to the injured person's spouse as a separate claim derived from the injury claim. If the spouse seeks that relief, join the spouse as a plaintiff and plead the consortium claim in its own count; do not include it among the injured plaintiff's damages.

Statute of Limitations. 735 ILCS 5/13-202 generally requires a personal-injury action to be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued. Determine accrual and screen for claim-, party-, and disability-specific periods, repose rules, tolling, and exceptions before filing.

Government Property — Tort Immunity Act. If a local public entity or public employee may be a defendant, separately verify the current Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, including the applicable limitations period and each claim-specific immunity or exception. Do not rely on the general Section 13-202 period alone.

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. This initial bodily-injury complaint does not seek punitive damages. If the facts support them, 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1 permits a later prayer only after a pretrial motion and hearing at which Plaintiff shows a reasonable likelihood of proving facts sufficient for such an award. File that motion no later than 30 days after discovery closes.

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
• 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1 — Pleading of Punitive Damages
• 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)

ATTACHMENT — RULE 222(b) AFFIDAVIT OF DAMAGES SOUGHT

Attach this damages-threshold affidavit to the initial money-damages pleading for each plaintiff under Rule 222(b). Select one alternative. The plaintiff may sign the certification under 735 ILCS 5/1-109 without a notary.

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], am a plaintiff in this action. The total money damages I seek [do / do not] exceed $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I certify that the statements in this affidavit are true and correct.

Plaintiff signature: ______________________________ Date: ______________