What’s a plaintiff’s attorney’s favorite “safety” device? Here’s a hint – it doesn’t matter if you have them or not, plaintiffs can always find a way to argue negligence.
What’s the answer? Floor mats!
If no floor mats are used, plaintiffs argue negligent failure to have floor mats. If there are mats, plaintiffs argue negligent placement. The best way to protect your company from liability is to know the law.
For kicks, I analyzed all Illinois case law involving floor mats. As fun as this may sound, it was actually very informative and useful because knowing the law in this much detail allows for easy decisions on whether to quickly settle or defend a floor mat claim.
I won’t bore you with a summary of all the cases, but I will provide a general outline of what you need to know. Based on my review, there are generally five different negligence theories involving floor mats:
1. Condition of the Mat / Manner of Placement
One of my favorite lines from a floor mat case, and one that is cited to probably more than any other, is:
“Although thousands of people tread them safely, it is possible for someone to trip over almost anything, no matter how common its use.” Robinson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 167 N.E.2d 793 (4th Dist. 1960).
The Robinson court held that the use of ordinary floor mats to assist pedestrians is perfectly reasonable, and the fact that a person trips on a mat, is not on its own, evidence of negligence.
To withstand summary judgment, plaintiffs need to show some evidence of a damaged or defective condition in the floor mat. If there is testimony or evidence that the mat was in a poor condition, the case is likely to go to the jury.
Most businesses have either a formal policy or unwritten rule that damaged mats must be replaced. Compliance with this policy is key. This can be done by using an outside company to regularly clean and replace your mats or by having a manager regularly inspect the mats and replace any that are damaged.
Illinois case law is well established in this area so you if you can show your mats were in good condition, summary judgment should be in your future.
2. Natural Accumulation – Stepping off Mat / Lack of Mat
Another common claim made by plaintiffs involves an entranceway covered in wetness from rain or snow. In these situations, plaintiffs tend to fall either because there is no floor mat or once the person steps off the mat, she slips and falls. Since the beginning of time, plaintiffs have argued that by placing a mat at the entrance, the business assumes a duty to keep it dry and keep the floor dry. Fortunately for businesses, that is not the law in Illinois.
Plaintiffs also regularly argue that if a store has a custom, practice or policy to put out mats in inclement weather, but fails to do so, the store breached its duty of care. Generally, that is not the case. If you can show that the cause of the slip was a natural accumulation, the analysis usually stops there. The custom, practice and policy of the store is generally not found to be relevant. See, Lohan v. Walgreens Company, 488 N.E.2d 679 (1st Dist. 1986).
In Illinois, the natural accumulation doctrine is well established and as a general rule, courts seem to uphold the doctrine and apply it whenever possible. For more information about natural accumulation laws in Illinois, please check out my natural accumulation refresher post.
3. Buckling Mat
When a mat is in perfect condition and the weather is dry, a buckle or ripple in the mat is the next most likely alleged cause of a floor mat incident. Even brand new mats can buckle, ripple or flip. Mats are constantly being walked on and often times, carts are being rolled over them.
The two main issues under this theory of negligence are whether the business had notice of the buckle or defect and whether a buckle existed in the mat that caused the fall. As to notice, this is generally a constructive notice situation but when mats are involved, courts often allow more time to pass between each inspection when determining what is “reasonable.”
Almost every plaintiff testifies that he did not look at the mat prior to the fall but afterwards, saw a buckle in the mat. This is usually insufficient evidence of causation because the incident itself could have caused the buckle. To get around this problem, plaintiffs testify they felt their foot grab or get stuck on something when they tripped. Whether this testimony is enough to withstand summary judgment is questionable and depends on the case, the other evidence and the judge.
I recently won summary judgment in a case in Cook County, IL involving a trip and fall on a floor mat and the ruling was upheld on appeal. The plaintiff did not see a buckle before or after the fall but said she felt her toe grab on the mat. An employee photographed a buckle after the incident. The primary reason summary judgment was granted was because there was no evidence of a buckle where the plaintiff fell. Simply because a buckle was somewhere on the mat afterwards was not enough to show the buckle existed before the fall or that it was in the same location and the cause of the fall. (http://www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2014/1stDistrict/1133384_R23.pdf)
4. Potential Defect Where Mats Meet
Under this theory, plaintiffs argue the cause of their trip is a defect where two or more mats overlap or meet. The analysis by the court is the same as with a buckle. The mere fact that mats meet or overlap is not enough to create negligence. There has to be an actual defect and the business must have notice of it.
5. Stripping Holding/Securing Mat
The last theory is often argued in conjunction with one of the above claims. Many plaintiffs argue that a business should have secured the mat and not doing so is a breach of duty. The first response to this is that there is no duty to secure mats to the floor. In fact, if the business is a grocery store or restaurant, there are likely health codes that do not allow taping mats to the floor. The second issue is that even if there is an internal policy to secure mats, in theory, that policy should not create a duty of care.
BEWARE! – One thing to keep in mind in any floor mat case is whether there was a pattern of problems. If the evidence shows a pattern of raised edges, buckles, gaps or other problems with a mat, summary judgment is not likely to be granted because the pattern can be viewed as constructive notice. Therefore, if a pattern is developing at your business, do something to stop the pattern so it can’t be used against you.
If you would like a copy of my floor mat law outline, which summarizes all reported Illinois cases involving floor mats, please contact me.