Francis a. Boyle and Walter Boyle v. State of Illinois

This is an action by the Claimants, Francis A. Boyle and Walter Boyle, to recover for damage to their personal property and real estate allegedly sustained as the result of a flood which occurred on the evening of July 6 and morning of July 7, 1982. The Claimants alleged that their damages were sustained as a result of the negligent maintenance of Clear Creek Bridge in Putnam County, Illinois. In the alternative, the Claimants allege that the bridge itself was defectively designed. Clear Creek Bridge is maintained hy the Illinois Department of Transportation and it carries Illinois Route 26 over Clear Creek and is situated in Putnam County, Illinois.

At the location 'in question, Illinois Route 26 runs generally north and south and is a two-lane paved highway. Clear Creek is an intermittent stream aid it flows generally from east to west toward the Illinois River. Clear Creek drains an area of approximately 24,000 acres.

[*66] At the time of the occurrence, the Claimants were operating a grain and livestock farm adjoining the intersection of Clear Creek and Illinois Route 26. The damages were sustained as a result of the flood when a portion of the Claimants’ levee was breached by the flow of water within Clear Creek damaging a portion of their 1982 corn, soybean and alfalfa crop. In addition to the crop damages, the Claimants allege partial permanent damage sustained to their real estate. The Respondent has stipulated to the personal property damage in the amount of $10,163.59, leaving the real estate damage in the amount of $4,500.00 to be resolved by the Court along with the liability issue.

Evidence was submitted by the Claimants and by the Respondent, oral argument was made to Commissioner Bruno Bernabei and the parties have filed their respective written briefs. The Commissioner duly filed his report and the matter is before the Court for decision on the merits.

After a consideration of the documentary and oral testimony offered by the respective parties and after considering the oral arguments and written briefs, the Court finds, and is of the opinion that, the issues are in favor of the Claimants as the same relate to the allegation that the Respondent has negligently maintained Clear Creek Bridge and in relation to the damages thereby sustained. The Court makes no findings as to the Claimants’ allegations that the Clear Creek Bridge was defectively designed and no opinion is rendered on that issue.

The Court further finds that the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Transportation were charged with the duty of properly maintaining Clear Creek Bridge on July 6 and 7,1982, and prior thereto; that prior [*67] to the date of the flood, a large amount of sand, silt and debris accumulated at and beneath the opening to Clear Creek Bridge and that the Respondent had actual notice of said accumulation prior to the date of the flood herein concerned.

The Court further finds that, in any event, the Respondent would be charged with constructive notice of the presence of the accumulated debris at and beneath Clear Creek Bridge in sufficient time prior to the flood of July 6 and 7, 1982, in order to have taken remedial efforts to remove said accumulation. In this regard, the Court finds the testimony of Engineer Renwick to be persuasive in that the area in and around Clear Creek Bridge was susceptible to erosion and the accumulation of debris, sand and silt was a foreseeable event as alleged by the Claimants and that the geography and topography of the watershed area of Clear Creek made it likely that an accumulation of debris, sand and silt would result. The Court further finds, as admitted by the Respondent herein, that there was no inspection of the area beneath Clear Creek Bridge for nearly two years prior to the occurrence herein.

The Court further finds that the failure on the part of the Respondent to ascertain that there was an accumulation of debris, sand and silt at the Clear Creek Bridge and the Respondent’s further failure to effect a removal thereof, constituted negligent maintenance on its part and that as a direct and proximate result of that negligent maintenance, the backwater condition was allowed to occur on the evening of July 6 and morning of July 7, 1982, during the rain which occurred on those dates, and that as a result of the backwater condition within Clear Creek, the waters within Clear Creek topped the Claimants’ dike resulting in a breach to the same and the ensuing flood upon the lands owned and [*68] operated by the Claimants, all of which resulted in the damages sought by the Claimants herein. The Court finds that the Claimants have sustained damage to personal property in the sum of $10,163.59 as stipulated, and damages to real estate in the additional sum of $4,500.00 as testified to by Claimants and not rebutted by the Respondent.

Claimants have met their burden of proof by a prepbnderance of the evidence that the State had actual or cofistructive notice, and that Respondent breached its

reasonable care. Further, the Respondent may

ged with constructive notice of a dangerous

n when, from all circumstances in the case, it is

ed that the State should have been aware of the existerice of this condition in the exercise of reasonable care. Talbot u. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. C1. 885.

It is therefore ordered that Francis A. Boyle and Walter D. Boyle be, and hereby are, awarded the sum of $10,163.59 for the damage to personal property; it is further ordered that Francis A. Boyle, pursuant to the assignment from Walter D. Boyle, be and hereby is awarded the sum of $4,500 for damages to real estate.

(No. 83-CC-U)23-Claimant awarded $7,500.00.)

K. WASSINGER, Claimant, 0.THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

GREGORY

Respondent.

Opinion filed December 19,1988.

' GREGORY K. WASS~GER,

pro se, for Claimant.

N EIL F. H ARTIGAN, Attorney General (C LAIRE GIBSON, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

[*69] NEGLIGENCE-res ipsa loquitur-elements. In circumstances where an injury is caused by something under the management of the State, and the injury is such that it would not have happened in the ordinary course of events if the State had exercised proper care, the injury itself affords reasonable evidence that it was due to the State’s failure to exercise due care.

PRISONERS A N D INMATES-plumbing facilities bI ceh-state’s dtrty to maintain. The management of the plumbing facilities in the cells housing inmates of facilities of the Department of Corrections is clearly the responsibility of the State of Illinois.

NEGLIGENCE-tOikt broke-inmate injured-no degree of comparative negligence assignable to inmate. No degree of comparative negligence was assignable to an inmate who was injured when a toilet he was using in his segregation cell broke away from the wall to which it was bolted, since the evidence showed that leakage around the toilet made it impossible for the inmate to use the toilet without causing some weight to be applied to the toilet.

PRISONERS AN D INmTES-toilet broke off wall-inmate iniurkd-award granted. An award was granted for the cuts and back injury sustained by an inmate of a correctional center when the toilet he was using in his segregation cell broke away from the wall to which it was bolted, since the evidence showed that the inmate had notified various correctional officers that the toilet was cracked and leaking, but the State failed to comply with its duty to repair the toilet.

RAUCCI, J

This is a claim brought by Gregory K. Wassinger, a resident of Centralia Correctional Center, for personal injuries sustained by Claimant when a defective toilet attached to a wall in Claimant’s cell fell under Claimant’s weight, shattered on the floor, and lacerated the Claimant’s body.

On March 31, 1981, Claimant was incarcerated in the segregation cell at Centralia Correctional Center. The cell was supplied with a toilet stool attached to the wall by bolts. The stool unit was cracked on the sides where washers and bolts attached the toilet to the back of the wall. Claimant complained to various correctional officers on all three work shifts that the toilet was badly cracked and leaking and that it could not be used. Claimant could not apply any weight on the stool unit because he could hear the porcelain cracking and [*70] breaking where it was hooked up by the washers on the wall bolts.

On the day in question the Claimant was attempting

to use the stool and to keep his weight off of the stool at

the same time. Because the toilet was leaking, his foot

slipped thereby casting his weight on the toilet. When

Claimant’s weight struck the toilet, the toilet broke off the wall, shattered on the floor and the Claimant fell into the broken porcelain. Claimant sustained lacerations on his legs, buttocks and fingers. Claimant sustained a 3?hinch laceration on the side of his right buttock, a l%-inch laceration on his lower left thigh, a 4-inch laceration on his upper left thigh, a ?&inchlaceration above his left eye, a 1-inch laceration on his little finger on his right hand, and 3 small lacerations on his right hand fingertips. Claimant also sustained a bruised back. Medical treatment by Claimant involved some difficulty in cleaning the wounds of broken pieces of porcelain.

Claimant also sustained a back injury from which he still suffers pain. Claimant is unable to tie his shoes and cannot get out of bed in the morning.

Respondent did not dispute Claimant’s allegations that he was injured in the manner described in Claimant’s testimony. The testimony of the Claimant and the facts of this accident including the nature and degree of Claimant’s injuries sustained is virtually uncontradicted on the record in this case.

It is clear that the plumbing facilities in the cells housing inmates in the facilities of the Department of Corrections is under the management of Respondent. Furthermore, when an injury has been caused by something under the management of the Respondent and the injury is such that in the ordinary course of [*71] events it would not have happened if Respondent had exercised proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation, that the accident arose from the Respondent’s want of due care. (Childress v . State (1985),37 Ill. Ct. C1. 269.) It is clear in the case at bar that Claimant brought the defective condition of the porcelain toilet to the notice of Respondent. Respondent was aware of the dangerous condition. (Burns v . State, 35 Ill. Ct. C1. 782.) Furthermore, the uncontradicted testimony concerning the leakage causing a slippery condition and making it impossible for Claimant to use the facility without slipping and causing weight to be applied to the porcelain stool renders it impossible to charge Claimant with any degree of comparative negligence.

There is no question that Claimant sustained severe laceration injuries on account of the negligence of Respondent. Less clear is the degree to which the Respondent is responsible for the serious back condition about which Claimant complains. It is clear that Claimant has sustained considerable medical treatment for his back complaints since the incident in question. Further, Claimant’s testimony regarding his limited ability to move and engage in physical activities is uncontradicted by Respondent. Respondent does not deny that Claimant has sought and been afforded considerable treatment for the back condition which Claimant states originated with this accident. We find that the Claimant should be awarded $7,500.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Claimant is awarded the sum of $7,500 in full and complete satisfaction for his injuries in this case.