Motion for Summary Judgment (Slip and Fall Case)
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant [Name], by and through [his/her] attorney [Name of Attorney], files this motion for an Order granting summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiff, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005, and states as follows:
Defendant [Name], moves for the entry of an order for summary judgment in its favor and against the plaintiff [Name] on the basis that this defendant had no duty to remedy or warn against an open and obvious condition as a matter of law.
In addition, and in the alternative to the foregoing, this defendant moves for the entry of an order for summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on the basis that, assuming that plaintiff can show a duty owed by Defendant [name], there is no evidence of actual or constructive notice of a defective condition on the subject site to support a finding of breach of that duty.
In addition, and in the alternative to the foregoing, this defendant moves for the entry of an order for summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on the basis that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about [Date], plaintiff filed an eight-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Count eight is brought on behalf of plaintiff and alleges negligence against defendant [Name]. (See Plaintiff’s Complaint at Law attached hereto as Exhibit A). The complaint seeks reimbursement for medical expenses for the care and treatment of injuries plaintiff allegedly received as a result of the occurrence of which the plaintiff complains pursuant to 750 ILCS 65/15.
The plaintiff has filed her complaint as a result of injuries allegedly sustained when she tripped on rocks that were present in the parking lot of Defendant [Name]’s store located at [address], on [Date]. The plaintiff’s Complaint at Law alleges that defendant [Name] had a duty to maintain the parking lot, and in particular the approaches to and from customer’s vehicles and the store entrance, in a reasonably safe condition for patrons, coming to or leaving from the store. (See Exhibit “A”, Count 6)
Plaintiff alleges that defendant [Name] acted negligently in the following respects:
(a) permitted the parking lot to be maintained in such a manner that it rendered an unreasonably dangerous risk to the safety to plaintiff and other members of the general public;
(b) failed to exercise the proper degree of care and watchfulness over the parking lot to ensure that a reasonably safe means of access existed for the general public;
(c) failed to take any precautions to prevent injury to plaintiff and other members of the general public that might occur from the negligent care and watchfulness over the parking lot;
(d) failed to provide safe access along said parking lot thereby disregarding the safety of plaintiff and other members of the general public.
(See Complaint at Exhibit A).
On [Date], defendant [Name] filed its Answer to plaintiff’s Complaint at Law in the form of a general denial. (See defendant [Name]’s Answer to plaintiff’s Complaint at Law attached hereto as Exhibit “B”) Defendant [Name] further alleged an affirmative defense of comparative fault.
B. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
Plaintiff gave her deposition in this matter on [Date]. Applicable pages of plaintiff’s deposition are attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
On the date of the accident, [Date], plaintiff went alone to the defendant [Name]’s store to pick up a child’s bike that had been assembled for her. She arrived at the store at approximately 7:00 pm, and parked in the far...
To continue readingRequest your trial