A recent Illinois appellate decision shows how courts treat hazards that are easy to see. Learn what the “open and obvious” rule means for a slip and fall claim, when exceptions may apply, and why the details of your accident matter.

After a fall, many people blame themselves right away: “I saw it, so it’s my fault.” In Illinois, the law is more nuanced than that. Property owners owe visitors a duty of reasonable care, but they are generally not required to protect people from dangers that are open and obvious. That does not mean every visible hazard ends a claim. It means the specific facts of your fall carry enormous weight.

On October 16, 2026, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, decided Stout v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2026 IL App (2d) 250335, a premises liability case about a tripping hazard at a gas station. The ruling is a useful reminder of why every slip and fall accident in Illinois has to be analyzed on its own circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• Illinois property owners are generally not responsible for dangers that a reasonable person would notice and avoid.
• An open and obvious hazard is not an automatic bar to a claim. Courts still weigh whether the owner owed a duty.
• Exceptions, such as the distraction exception and the deliberate encounter exception, can apply, but only when the facts support them.
• Evidence, timing, and the arguments raised early in a case can decide the outcome.
• Illinois generally gives you two years to file a personal injury lawsuit, so waiting can cost you your claim.

What Does “Open and Obvious” Mean in Illinois?

Under Illinois law, a condition is open and obvious when both the danger itself and the risk it creates would be apparent to a reasonable person in the same position, using ordinary perception, intelligence, and judgment.

The thinking behind the rule is simple. When a hazard is plainly visible, people are expected to notice it and take care, so the chance that someone will be hurt is considered slight. A clearly visible object in the middle of a walkway is a common example.

The question is not whether the hazard was visible to the owner or to a lawyer reviewing photos afterward. It is whether a reasonable person in your position, at that moment, would have recognized the condition and the danger that came with it.

Does an Open and Obvious Hazard Automatically End a Slip and Fall Case?

No. Illinois courts do not treat “open and obvious” as an automatic win for the property owner. Even when a condition is obvious, the court still looks at whether the owner owed a duty of care under the specific facts.

That duty analysis considers four things:

1. How foreseeable the injury was.
2. How likely the injury was to happen.
3. How burdensome it would be to guard against the injury.
4. What the consequences would be of placing that burden on the owner.

When a hazard is obvious, the first two factors usually carry little weight, because people are expected to be careful. That is why the burden on the owner often becomes the deciding point.

Whether a condition is open and obvious can also be a question of fact. If the parties disagree about what the hazard looked like, a judge may decide a jury should answer it.

What Happened in Stout v. Costco?

In March 2022, a woman was refueling her husband’s pickup truck at a Costco gas station in Mettawa, in Lake County. The fuel port was on the driver’s side, right next to the pump, so the hose hung in a U shape between the truck and the pump.

It was a rainy day and the hose was wet. She decided to step over it to tell her husband the price of the gas. She cleared the hose with her right foot, but her left foot caught on it and she fell, suffering significant injuries.

She sued Costco for negligence, claiming, among other things, that the hose’s retraction device was broken and that the store failed to inspect the hose or warn customers. The trial court granted summary judgment for Costco, and the Second District affirmed.

Why the Court Ruled the Hose Was Open and Obvious

The appellate court concluded that the hose was open and obvious as a matter of law. Several facts mattered:

• She had placed the nozzle in her own vehicle and started pumping, so she knew the hose was there.
• She had used that gas station before.
• Nobody disputed that the hose was visible.
• A short surveillance video showed her lifting her foot high to step over it, which the court saw as proof that she understood it was an obstacle and a tripping risk.

The court then ran the duty analysis anyway. Because the danger was obvious, an injury was not very foreseeable or likely. Meanwhile, protecting customers from this kind of hazard would have meant assigning staff to watch customers at the pumps, a heavy burden across every Costco location with a fuel station. Weighing those factors, the court found Costco owed no duty in this case.

Why the Exceptions Did Not Save the Claim

Illinois recognizes exceptions to the open and obvious rule. The injured woman argued two of them, and both failed on these facts.

The Distraction Exception

This exception can apply when the owner has reason to expect that a visitor’s attention will be diverted, so the visitor may not notice the hazard, may forget about it, or may fail to protect themselves. There must be evidence that the person was actually distracted, and the distraction must have been reasonably foreseeable to the owner.

In Stout, the woman said she was worried about getting a wet, dirty hose on her clothes. The court viewed this as a distraction she created herself, and noted that stepping over the hose actually brought her closer to the very thing she wanted to avoid. It held that the owner could not reasonably foresee that behavior.

The Deliberate Encounter Exception

This exception can apply when an owner should expect that people will knowingly face a danger because the benefits outweigh the risk, for example when there is no practical alternative.

The court rejected it for two reasons. First, the argument was not raised in the trial court, so it was forfeited on appeal. Second, even if it had been raised, she could have simply walked around the truck. That path would have been only a minor inconvenience, and nothing outside her own choices pushed her to step over the hose.

The lesson for injured people is clear: the right legal arguments need to be raised at the right time.

What Facts Can Change the Outcome of an Illinois Slip and Fall Case?

The Stout decision turned on very specific facts: the woman herself created the obstacle, saw it, and showed on video that she understood it. Other Illinois cases have gone differently when the facts were different. Details that can matter include:

• Visibility: Was the hazard hard to see because of poor lighting, weather, or a lack of contrast with the surrounding surface?
• Size and type of the defect: A small or camouflaged defect may not be obvious to someone walking toward it.
• What you were doing: Were you carrying merchandise, following instructions, or completing a task the property owner created?
• Other dangers nearby: Were you watching for traffic, falling debris, or another risk?
• Alternatives: Was there a safe, reasonable path around the hazard?
• Who was injured: Courts consider that a young child may not appreciate a danger the way an adult would.
• Evidence: Photos, surveillance video, witness statements, incident reports, and maintenance records can make or break a claim.
• What the owner knew: Did the owner know, or should the owner have known, about the dangerous condition?

What If You Were Partly at Fault for Your Fall?

Illinois follows a modified comparative fault rule. Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault. If you are found to be more than 50 percent responsible for your own injury, you cannot recover damages at all.

This is why insurance companies often argue that “you should have seen it.” A careful review of the facts can help show how responsibility should really be shared.

How Long Do You Have to File a Slip and Fall Claim in Illinois?

In most cases, you have two years from the date of the injury to file a personal injury lawsuit in Illinois under 735 ILCS 5/13-202. If the property belongs to a government entity, shorter deadlines or special notice requirements may apply.

Evidence also disappears quickly. Surveillance footage can be overwritten, and conditions at the scene can change within days. Acting early protects both your rights and your proof.

What Should You Do After a Slip and Fall in Illinois?

1. Get medical care. Your health comes first, and medical records document your injuries.
2. Report the fall. Tell the manager or property owner and ask for a copy of any incident report.
3. Document the scene. Take photos and videos of the hazard, the surrounding area, the lighting, and the weather conditions.
4. Collect witness information. Names and phone numbers can be valuable later.
5. Keep your shoes and clothing. Do not clean or discard them.
6. Be careful with insurance companies. Avoid giving a recorded statement or signing anything before getting legal advice.
7. Keep your records together. Save medical bills, work-related documents, and anything else tied to the fall.
8. Speak with a slip and fall lawyer. A lawyer can review how the open and obvious rule and its exceptions apply to your situation before important deadlines pass.

Frequently Asked Questions About Slip and Fall Claims in Illinois Can I still file a slip and fall claim in Illinois if the hazard was visible?

Possibly. An open and obvious hazard can seriously weaken a claim, but it is not an automatic bar. The outcome depends on the facts, the duty analysis, and whether an exception applies.

What is the open and obvious rule in Illinois?

It is a rule that generally relieves property owners of responsibility for dangers that a reasonable person would notice and avoid.

What is the distraction exception?

It is an exception that may apply when the owner should have expected a visitor’s attention to be drawn away from an obvious hazard, and the person was actually distracted.

What if I was partly responsible for my fall?

You may still recover compensation if you are not more than 50 percent at fault, although your award will be reduced by your share of responsibility.

How long do I have to sue after a fall in Illinois?

Generally two years from the date of the injury, with shorter deadlines possible when a government entity is involved.

Do I need a lawyer for a slip and fall case?

You are not required to hire one, but premises liability cases can turn on technical rules and early evidence. Speaking with a lawyer early can help you understand your options.

Injured in a Fall in Illinois? Talk to a Slip and Fall Lawyer

The Stout decision shows that no two falls are alike. Where it happened, what you could see, what you were doing, and what the owner should have expected can all change the result. Before you assume you do not have a case, have someone review the facts.

Weiss Ortiz Attorneys & Mediators serves clients throughout Cook County, Illinois, including Chicago, La Grange Park, Oak Brook, and Deerfield.

Weiss Ortiz Attorneys & Mediators Cook County, Illinois | Chicago | La Grange Park | Oak Brook | Deerfield Free consultations: 773-498-4498 Website: weissortizlaw.com

Attorney Advertising. Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change, and their application depends on the specific facts of each situation. The Stout decision was issued by the Second District Appellate Court and applies the law to its own facts; other courts may view different facts differently. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.