Kimbrough v. Jewel Companies, Inc.
92 Ill. App. 3d 813, 416 N.E. 2d 328, 48 Ill. Dec. 297 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a negligence action cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment if they fail to produce any evidence establishing a causal link between the defendant's alleged negligence and their injury. Liability cannot be based on mere speculation or conjecture as to the cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Ann Kimbrough was a customer at a store owned by Jewel Companies, Inc.
- Upon exiting the store, Kimbrough stepped onto an exterior ramp.
- She was holding her daughter's hand and carrying a grocery bag.
- After taking one step on the ramp with her right foot, her feet went out from under her and she fell.
- After the fall, she observed what appeared to be grease spots on the ramp in the general area where she fell.
- Kimbrough did not know if her foot had actually touched the grease spots, and she did not inspect her shoe afterward.
- In a sworn deposition, Kimbrough repeatedly stated that she did not know why she fell.
- Kimbrough did not know of any eyewitnesses to the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann Kimbrough (plaintiff) filed a negligence lawsuit against Jewel Companies, Inc. (defendant) in an Illinois trial court.
- During discovery, Kimbrough stated in a deposition that she did not know why she fell and in interrogatories that there were no known eyewitnesses.
- Jewel filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Kimbrough could not prove what caused her fall.
- The trial court granted Jewel's motion for summary judgment.
- Kimbrough, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall negligence case raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment when she repeatedly admits she does not know what caused her to fall?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE Romiti
No. A plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case does not raise a genuine issue of material fact when she cannot provide any evidence as to the cause of her fall. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the element of proximate cause, which requires a reasonable certainty that the defendant's acts caused the injury, not mere surmise or conjecture. Here, Kimbrough repeatedly admitted she did not know why she fell. While she saw grease spots, she could not establish that she stepped on them or that they were the cause of her fall; this connection is pure speculation. Citing precedent like Brett v. F. W. Woolworth Co., the court reasoned that a plaintiff's inability to identify what caused their fall is fatal to their claim. Since the plaintiff failed to establish the element of proximate cause, she could not sustain her burden of making a prima facie case, and a directed verdict would be proper at trial; therefore, summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical importance of the proximate cause element in negligence claims. It clarifies that a plaintiff's inability to produce affirmative evidence of causation, relying instead on speculation about potential hazards, is insufficient to survive summary judgment. The ruling empowers defendants to dispose of slip-and-fall cases early in litigation if the plaintiff cannot articulate, with evidence, what specifically caused their injury. This effectively raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs who are injured in unwitnessed falls where the cause is not immediately obvious, as they cannot rely on the mere existence of a potential hazard to get their case to a jury.
