The document discusses the legal principle of premise liability as it relates to a case involving a woman, Mrs. Ipana, who slipped and fell at a supermarket, Shigley's. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that Mrs. Ipana fell in Aisle 3 due to an uncleaned spill and was seriously injured. It analyzes relevant rules on premise liability, including that businesses must warn of hazards they should expect customers to encounter while distracted. The memorandum concludes that whether Shigley's is liable depends on if they should have foreseen customers approaching the spill while distracted, and recommends accepting the case against Shigley's, finding them liable for Mrs. Ipana's injuries.

1. To: Supervising Attorney
From: Michael Currie
Date: 10/3/2016
In Re: Premises Liability memorandum
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The legal principle of premise liability is one that has far reaching consequences for both
homeowners and business entities. The concept revolves around the theory that both must
provide safe and danger free premises in order to avoid injuries or damages to other parties.
With roots in common law, the principle of creating and maintaining hazard free land quickly
became the legal standard. As a result of this evolving principle, courts and legislatures over the
past century and beyond have enacted rules and regulations for maintaining safe premises.
There is ample case law relating to this topic, as everyday scenarios give rise to the evolution of
the legal concept. This memorandum will discuss some of the elements of premise liability,
along with both relevant statutory and case law on the matter as it pertains to the case at hand.
FACTS
According to the client intake report and the incident report, it is documented that Mrs.
Ipana visited Shigley’s supermarket store as a business invitee on Saturday morning November
11th at approximately 9:30 A.M. The client intake report states that Mrs. Ipana proceeded to
the frozen foods Aisle 3, where she was looking into the freezer cases for a particular brand.
After no more than 4 to 5 steps into the aisle her feet went out from under her and she fell
backwards with her shoulders and head striking the floor. She woke up in the hospital with a

2. cerebral concussion, cervical injury, lumbosacral injury, slurred speech and severe headaches.
She was treated in intensive care for one night and then saw her family physician and
neurologist for the following five months. The injuries Mrs. Ipana suffered are severe and of
lasting nature, potentially being permanent.
According to the Shigley’s Supermarket incident report, the spill was noticed around 9
AM whereby the manager ordered a cleanup and caution pylon. The situation was handled by
placing the pylon in place but the cleanup was not completed until 10:15, well after the incident
involving Mrs. Ipana. It is important to note however that Mrs. Ipana has had a history of back
injuries revolving around a water skiing accident a four years prior. According to the water
skiing accident report, Mrs. Ipana suffered an acute dorsal, lumbosacral and cervical sprain and
strain. Following four months of treatment due to the water skiing accident, Mrs. Ipana made
significant recovery and was subsequently discharged with instructions to return should her
symptoms reoccur.
ISSUE
The primary issue at hand is whether or not Shigley’s Supermarket can be held liable for
the injuries to Mrs. Ipana, due to their negligence by failing to maintain safe premises in their
store. The concept of premise liability has ample case law that will be helpful in determining if
Shigley’s can be held liable or not. Other relevant issues include the expiration of the statute of
limitations for the case. The defendants have alleged in their answer to the complaint that the
statute of limitations for this case has passed and Mrs. Ipana is therefore barred from bringing
the suit. In addition, the defendants claim that Mrs. Ipana was comparatively negligent and

3. significantly contributed to her own injuries. Lastly, the defendants claim that Mrs. Ipana
assumed the risk of injury in this matter
RULE
Although there is minimal statutory law on the premise liability, the courts generally
follow rules laid out in the second restatement of torts. The second restatement of torts reads
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition
on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the
condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect
themselves against it, and(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the
danger.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965) These elements lay out the foundation of
what can be interpreted as negligence under the theory of premise liability.
A relevant case which uses the reasoning mentioned above is found in a personal injury
case where the plaintiff was injured in the parking lot of a K-Mart store. The aforesaid plaintiff
was carrying a large mirror that he has recently purchased when he inadvertently walking into a
concrete post in the parking lot. A portion of the case reads “It is expected that people on the
premises will notice and avoid open and obvious dangers. However, the owner has a duty to
warn others about dangerous conditions on the property where the owner or occupier knows
or should know that people will approach the hazard while distracted.” Ward v. Kmart Corp.,
136 Ill.2d 132, 149–50, 554 N.E.2d 223, 143 Ill.Dec. 288 (1990) This case illustrates how the
defendant has a duty to warn others about a dangerous condition when one can reasonably
expect that one may approach the danger while distracted.

4. The case continues, stating “In determining whether a duty is owed in a premises
liability case, the court considers: (1) the likelihood of injury; (2) the reasonable foreseeability
of such an injury; (3) the burden of guarding against such an injury; and (4) the consequences of
placing that burden on a defendant. Id at 140. These elements relate to the foreseeability of a
hazard in a premise liability scenario, and also discusses how safeguarding against a hazard
becomes a burden on the defendant. The burden placed on the defendant is therefore assessed
by the courts where the relative duty is determined by the assessment of the burden.
Another useful secondary source is the pattern jury instructions for Illinois. The jury
instructions lay out some elements for a cause of action for a premise liability case. Although
the jury instructions are a secondary source, they may be useful in determining whether
Shigley’s Supermarket may be held liable for Mrs. Ipana’s injuries. The instructions read “1) A
condition on the property presented an unreasonable risk of harm to people on the property;
(2) The defendant knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of both the
condition and the risk; (3) The defendant could reasonably expect that people on the property
would not discover or realize the danger or would fail to protect themselves against such
danger; (4) The defendant was negligent in one or more ways;(5) The plaintiff was injured; and
(6) The defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.” Ill. Pattern Jury
Instr.-Civ. 120.08.
The second restatement of torts, section 343(A) has been cited in cases which relate to
the concept of a distraction exception. The distraction exception is defined by the following
case which states “This exception involves a situation where a possessor of land should
anticipate the harm because it has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be

5. distracted, so that the invitee would not discover the condition despite its obviousness or will
forget what he has discovered and fail to protect himself against it.” Clifford v. Wharton Bus.
Grp., L.L.C., 353 Ill. App. 3d 34, 43, 817 N.E.2d 1207 (1st Dist. Ill. 2004)
ANALYSIS
In analyzing the relevant rules of premise liability as it pertains to the facts of the case, it
is clear that there is no clear cut answer in determining if Shigley’s would be held liable under
the circumstances. Shigley’s would have a good argument that the pylon set in place would
constitute a warning as to the hazard and would therefore relieve them from liability in this
case. Shigley’s would probably argue that a reasonable person would see the pylon near the
spill and be aware that there was a danger or hazard near the area and take necessary
precautions to avoid the danger. The issue largely revolves around determining if negligence
was present and if that negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. In assessing
negligence it is important to determine the presence of duty and what actually constitutes a
duty in this scenario.
Ward v. K-Mart Corp. provides the most relevant answer to this question by stating
“the owner has a duty to warn others about dangerous conditions on the property where the
owner or occupier knows or should know that people will approach the hazard while
distracted.” Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill.2d 132, 149–50, 554 N.E.2d 223, 143 Ill.Dec. 288
(1990). If it can be shown that Shigley’s should have known that people would approach the
hazard while being distracted, then the subsequent duty to warn arises. On the contrary, if
Shigley’s can show that it had no reason to expect that people will approach the hazard while
being distracted, than it will be held that Shigley’s owed no duty and is therefore not liable for

6. any injuries that arise from the hazard. Mrs. Ipana could argue that Shigley’s had reason to
expect distraction by showing that she was distracted by looking at the freezers while looking
for a particular brand and therefore had no reason to be aware of the spill and the pylon.
Shigley’s could argue the opposite viewpoint by showing that the hazard and its warning was
open and obvious, whereby a reasonable person would notice it and take precautionary
measures in order to avoid the obvious hazard.
CONCLUSION
The concept of premise liability is one that has far reaching implications for possessors
of land and those who frequent the land. As in most instances, scenarios arise that give way to
a multitude of arguments and rationales. Being under the large umbrella known as negligence,
the theory of premise liability follows the same four elements; duty, breach, causation and
damages. The difficult part in proving liability in premise liability cases is determining duty.
Many cases and secondary sources try to establish what would constitute a duty in different
scenarios, although it is impossible to address every circumstance. To establish duty, one must
show how a reasonable person would act in a certain circumstance. This is often difficult as
every person has a different idea of what is reasonable, therefore making duty a difficult
concept to determine definitively.
In the case at hand, the determination of the presence of duty would likely lead to the
conclusion that Shigley’s Supermarket would be liable for the injuries Mrs. Ipana sustained
while shopping. With a multitude of arguments that could be made on either side, it is clear
that this case could go either way. If it can be shown that Mrs. Ipana had reason to be
distracted while shopping and not notice the pylon and spill, it would be likely that she would

7. win the case. If Shigley’s can show that they owed no duty to Mrs. Ipana and took appropriate
measures to handle to hazardous spill, then they would likely win the case. With all relevant
facts considered, it is my recommendation that this case be accepted and that Shigley’s
supermarket is liable for the injuries to Mrs. Ipana as a matter of law.