Safe Ingress and Egress: What Is a Store Owner's Duty?

As Chicago and the rest of the Midwest move from summer to fall to winter, we will inevitably see rain, hail and the white stuff we all love to hate. Wet weather conditions in any season can make it difficult not only to drive and walk safely, but also to keep the floors of stores and shops dry once customers begin to track water inside. If you're a business owner, what are the legal ramifications of wet floors and what is your duty to ensure that your customers have a safe entry into and exit from your store?

The Illinois Appellate Court recently addressed those questions in Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Laundry World. In that case, a Laundromat (the defendant) had an entranceway consisting of two sets of doors. The first set allowed entry from the outside into an enclosed vestibule, while the second set opened into the Laundromat's main interior space. Before the plaintiff arrived at the Laundromat on the day in question, one of the defendant's employees positioned one mat in the vestibule between the two sets of doors and another mat beyond the second set of doors. Because it had been drizzling around the time of the incident, the parking lot and concrete landing near the entranceway were wet. When the plaintiff entered the vestibule from the outside, she slipped and fell as she stepped off of the first mat and onto the bare vestibule floor.

The customer brought an action against the Laundromat for personal injuries resulting from the defendant's alleged negligence in the maintenance, upkeep and inspection of the property. The customer alleged that the Laundromat was negligent for allowing the floor to become and remain wet and slippery, for failing to dry the floor, for failing to display "wet floor" signs or otherwise warn of the hazard, and for failing to provide a safe means of ingress and egress. On summary judgment, the trial court found the Laundromat was not liable for the customer's injuries, and the customer appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Laundromat owed her a duty to remove the water on the floor or to provide a warning about the wet conditions. She also claimed that the Laundromat had a common law duty to provide its customers with a reasonably safe means of ingress to and egress from its place of business. The Illinois Appellate Court found that property owners and business operators do have a general duty to provide a reasonably safe means of ingress to and egress from their business. However, Illinois law is well-settled that property owners and business operators are not liable for injuries resulting from the natural accumulation of ice, snow or water that is tracked into the premises. Under the so-called "natural accumulation rule," property owners and business operators do not have a duty to remove the tracks or residue left inside the building by customers who have walked through natural accumulations outside. Further, it is irrelevant whether a natural accumulation remains on the property for an "unreasonable" length of time. In fact, since business owners and operators are not liable for failing to remove natural accumulations of water, they also have no duty to warn of such conditions.

But what if the doors leading to the puddle are the store's only method of ingress and egress? The natural accumulation rule applies regardless of where the injury occurs on the premises and, therefore, has also been applied in cases where a customer's fall has occurred in a hospital parking garage, at the bottom of the stairs in a train station and in a store parking lot.

Does the natural accumulation rule still apply even if the owner or operator has established a bad-weather policy? In the Reed case, the plaintiff argued that because the defendant had adopted a rainy-day protocol, the Laundromat assumed a duty of care that required it to alleviate the dangers of a wet floor by placing additional mats, putting up cones, and mopping and towel drying the floor when it became wet.  The court found that businesses do not assume liability for natural accumulations by adopting a rainy-day maintenance program. The key is not whether a business, in establishing a bad-weather program, places two mats down instead of four. Instead, the critical inquiry is whether that business placed those two mats negligently. In the Reed case, the Laundromat placed two mats at the entranceway but did not then assume a duty to remove tracked-in water or to install as many mats as necessary to absorb that water. The Laundromat's duty was only to maintain with reasonable care the two mats it placed down.

So, if you're a business owner or operator, does this mean you're off the hook on those rainy or snowy days when a puddle of water appears just inside your front door? Not necessarily. Property owners and business operators may be liable for injuries resulting from an accumulation of ice, water or snow if a plaintiff establishes that the means of ingress or egress was unsafe for any reason other than a natural accumulation. For instance, in Kittle v. Liss, the Illinois Appellate Court held that although the plaintiff customer slipped and fell on a natural accumulation of ice, there was still a question of whether the owner provided adequate lighting. Therefore, if a customer establishes that a property owner or business operator did not meet his or her duty to properly illuminate the premises, or to repair or give warning of other known, dangerous conditions, then the owner may be held liable regardless of whether the natural accumulation rule applies.

The same goes if the customer can establish that his or her injuries resulted from an artificial or unnatural accumulation of water, or from a natural condition that was aggravated by the owner or operator. Liability may exist, for instance, if a customer establishes that the accumulation of water, snow or ice is unnatural due to the design, construction or maintenance of the building or premises. (See Roberson v. J.C.Penney Co.) Along those lines, Illinois courts have held that businesses are liable for injuries resulting from tracked-in water where the plaintiff alleges that the materials used in the floors at issue were particularly slippery and dangerous when wet. (See Selby v. Danville Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. and Lohan v. Walgreens Co.)

In certain instances, the natural accumulation rule will keep an Illinois store owner from being liable for water tracked in from the outside. Once a customer alleges that the floor surface is particularly slippery, or that the premises are designed such that an otherwise natural accumulation is unnatural, however, that protection no longer applies. What can a business owner or operator do to minimize risk when inclement weather rears its ugly head? The best bet is to use common sense, keep your premises as dry as possible and warn customers or guests when floors are wet.