Joseph Sobolak v. State of Illinois

OPINION

PATCHETT, J. This claim is for personal injuries arising out of a single vehicle accident on February 20, 1994. On that date, a Sunday, the Claimant, Joseph Sobolak, was driving home at approximately 6:15 p.m. While eastbound on Lake Cook Road at approximately Three Lakes Road in Barrington Hills, Illinois, Mr. Sobolak encountered a substantial amount of standing water in the roadway. He lost control of his vehicle as it hydroplaned. It went off the road into a water-filled ditch, where it came to rest after striking a tree.

Undisputed testimony at trial of Mr. Sobolak concerned the extensive injuries that he received as a result of this accident, as well as the lengthy recuperation period that was thereafter required. During the evening of February 20, 1994, Barrington Hills Police Officer Dominick Caputo testified that he was dispatched to the scene of an accident at Lake Cook Road near Three Lakes Road. He saw water covering the entire roadway, as much as four or five inches in some places. He also found Mr. Sobolak in his vehicle in a ditch alongside the road in approximately three feet of water. Officer Caputo opined that in his experience, this much water on the roadway was a hazard to motorists, and that he had seen no signs whatsoever warning for water on the roadway. In Officer Caputo s various police reports with respect to this accident, he also took statements from witnesses which indicated that Mr. Sobolak did not appear to be speeding or doing anything unusual in his driving habits prior to the accident. In fact, in the course of his investigation, Officer Caputo found nothing to indicate that Mr. Sobolak had contributed to this accident. Officer Caputo further testified that he called dispatch and advised that some sort of traffic signs need to be put up to warn motorists of the standing water. Officer Caputo further testified that he called IDOT himself within an hour or two after Mr. Sobolak s accident.

Kathleen Bolanowski, who was a Barrington Hills Police Officer at the time of the accident, testified that on the morning of February 20, 1994 at [*335] 5:00 a.m., she responded to a call to investigate an automobile accident at Lake Cook Road and Three Lakes Road. She testified that there was heavy flooding in the area and that water was covering the roadway. Officer Bolanowski testified that her police report with respect to that incident at 5:00 a.m. on February 20 contained no mention of any signs warning of water in the roadway. Had there been warning signs, she would have mentioned them in her report. To buttress that contention, she indicated that there were two similar accidents the following morning at approximately 4:40 a.m. in which her reports do indicate that warning signs were in place. As an experienced police officer, she also testified that that much water on the roadway created a hazardous condition to motorists, and that either she or her Sergeant had requested their dispatcher to notify IDOT of the condition.

Paul Hertel, an IDOT employee for over twenty years, testified that as a lead-lead worker, he supervises workers who help maintain roads controlled by IDOT. He described the manner in which he and his crew would be notified of a problem and the manner in which most problems were fixed. He testified that he had been in the Lake Cook Road/Three Lakes Road intersection some sixteen hours before Mr. Sobolak s accident and had placed water on pavement warning signs at that time. He further testified that he returned at or about 3:30 a.m. and picked up his signs because the road appeared to be clear, even though the drainage system was fighting a wall of water. Although he opined that his signs were sufficient, he also admitted that whenever water is flowing across the roadway it is hazardous.

Tony Rekar, a former lead-lead worker with IDOT, testified that he visited the area of the accident during the evening of February 20, 1994.

He did so because somebody at IDOT had notified him that there were not enough signs at that location. He really could not recall if they wanted additional signs, or if his signs were needed because there were no signs.

He put out signs.

This court has consistently set forth certain principles when dealing with the issue of whether the State is responsible for damages that occur on state highways. In Gray v. the State, 21 CCR 531, we stated that the State of Illinois is not an insurer against all accidents. Before Claimants may recover they must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. that the Respondent was negligent, 2. that the negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, 3. that Claimants were free from contributory negligence; and damages.

We have also said that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and care of its highways to prevent dangerous conditions.

Further, in order to recover from the State, a Claimant must show that the State had actual or constructive notice of the defect that caused the injury. Weygandt vs. State, 22 CCR 478.

[*336] 336 54 Ill. Ct. Cl.

In recent years, this Court has decided similar cases. In Sallee v. State (1990), 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 41, an award was made because the State failed to warn of water on a highway even though it had notice of the defect in question.

Another dif ficult issue to resolve in this case, and the one which more often arises in similar cases, is that of negligence. Numerous cases decided by this Court have held that this State is not an insurer as to the safety of motorists or passengers upon its highways. The State is only required to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition. In addition, before the State can be held liable for highways which are not maintained in a reasonably safe condition, the State must have notice of the dangerous condition.

This notice requirement has been defined by this Court in numerous cases to be either actual notice or constructive notice. If the State had notice of water standing on the roadway at this location, the State would have been required to either correct that situation or to place warning signs as to the dangerous condition.

In this matter, there appears to be ample evidence of actual notice to the State regarding the condition of flooding on Lake Cook Road. Both IDOT records as well as records from the Barrington Hills Police Department demonstrate that calls were made and received regarding water on the roadway in this location.

In this instance, we believe that the State failed to take proper precautions once it had actual notice of a defective condition. It was this failure to adequately warn by proper signs or barricades that constituted negligence by the State of Illinois.

The law requires that once the State has notice of a defect or dangerous condition, they do all that is reasonably necessary to adequately warn and protect the motoring public. In this instance the State failed to do so.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there was some conflict in the testimony. In short, the various IDOT workers recalled placing water on roadway signs at the location and in fact recalled removing the signs. The timing of when the signs were present, and whether extra signs were placed at the location is somewhat ambiguous perhaps simply through the passage of time. The two Barrington Hills police officers on the other hand clearly testified that there were no signs at the location, and that each of the officers at separate times personally called IDOT to request their help.

The Claimant s injuries were serious with medical expenses of $50,479.00. Lost earnings as an oiler and greaser were $6,300.00. We therefore award $100,000.00.