Illinois Slip and Fall Accident Funding

Two years from the date of the fall for a negligence/premises-liability claim (735 ILCS 5/13-202). Illinois applies the general personal-injury limitations period rather than a distinct premises-liability statute.

Illinois applies modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar: a plaintiff more than 50% at fault recovers nothing (735 ILCS 5/2-1116). Illinois also recognizes the common-law "natural accumulation rule": a landowner generally owes no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow and is not liable for a fall caused by them, absent an unnatural accumulation or a voluntary undertaking that increases the hazard. The Illinois Snow and Ice Removal Act (745 ILCS 75/1 et seq.) reinforces this by immunizing owners and residential occupants who voluntarily clear snow and ice from a sidewalk abutting their property, absent conduct that is willful or wanton. Together, these make snow/ice slip-and-fall claims meaningfully harder to establish in Illinois than a standard wet-floor or debris case, where the ordinary notice standard applies.

No statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability slip-and-fall case.

Illinois enacted a prejudgment-interest statute applicable to personal-injury actions, generally providing 6% per year accruing from the date the action was filed (735 ILCS 5/2-1303, effective July 1, 2021); its application to cases and injuries predating the effective date has been the subject of subsequent Illinois Supreme Court clarification and should be confirmed against the specific case timeline.

Proper in the county of residence of any defendant or the county where the accident occurred (735 ILCS 5/2-101).

Illinois regulates consumer litigation funding under the Consumer Legal Funding Act, 815 ILCS 121/1 et seq.. Fee capped at 18% of the funded amount per 6-month period, plus a one-time document preparation fee of no more than $75.

How does the natural-accumulation rule change a winter slip-and-fall claim in Illinois?

Illinois generally does not hold a landowner liable for a fall on naturally accumulated snow or ice under longstanding common law. A viable claim usually requires showing the accumulation was unnatural, caused by drainage or design, or that clearing efforts actually made the condition worse than it would have been.

This threshold issue is often dispositive of the entire case. Early case evaluation in a winter fall therefore focuses heavily on whether the ice or snow was a product of the property's own condition, such as a downspout draining directly onto a walkway, rather than simply ordinary weather.

Does clearing snow ever increase a property owner's liability exposure?

It can. The Snow and Ice Removal Act protects voluntary clearing efforts unless they are willful or wanton, but evidence that the clearing itself created a worse hazard than the original natural accumulation can still support a viable claim against the property owner.

This creates a narrower path to liability than an ordinary notice case would. The plaintiff must show the clearing itself, not merely the underlying weather, caused or worsened the dangerous condition that led to the fall.

How does the 51% bar interact with a disputed notice defense in a non-winter case?

For hazards other than snow and ice — a wet floor, a torn mat, uneven flooring — Illinois applies the ordinary actual-or-constructive notice standard, and a plaintiff found 51% or more at fault for not noticing the condition recovers nothing under the comparative-fault statute.

That makes the comparative-fault allocation, not just the underlying notice evidence, a determinative factor once liability is otherwise established in a standard Illinois premises case. Both issues are typically developed together during discovery.