Rose Reed v. State of Illinois

OPINION

LIPINSKI, J.

This cause comes before the court upon recommendation from Commissioner Carol Dillard following an evidentiary hearing that took place on March 20, 2003. Claimant seeks compensation for personal injury following an alleged fall that she experienced on property owned and maintained by the Illinois Department of Human Services on December 12, 2000. The Complaint was filed on December 12, 2001 and seeks $100,000. The Complaint sounds in negligence and alleges that the Department permitted an unusual accumulation of ice and snow.

[*223] Facts

Three witnesses testified at the hearing: Claimant Rose Reed; Witness Ellen Reed (no relation); Jaime Roman, Assistant Office Administrator for the Department of Human Services.

Claimant testified that on December 13, 2000, she went to the Illinois Department of Human Services office at 4105 W. Chicago Avenue to apply for medical benefits. Her friend Ellen Reed drove her there. Claimant testified that it was not snowing and the sun was shining, although it had snowed the day before the incident. Claimant testified that on her way into the building, she did not see a clear walkway and that the snow on the sidewalk came up almost to her knee. The way from the street to the building was sloped and it appeared to her that there was a hill going up to the entrance of the building. Claimant did not use any steps, as she could not see any steps in front of the building. Claimant testified that although she saw a handicapped ramp, she did not see any railings. Claimant then waded through the snow to get into the building. In order to enter the building, Claimant stepped off the yard onto the landing that is right at the door of the building. The yard is actually a cement area that is to the side of the steps. Although she felt it was dangerous to be walking in that area, she did not complain to anyone about the snow once she got into the building.

Claimant had arrived at the building at approximately 10:20 a.m. At this point, she only saw about five people. Claimant then filled out an application for benefits, left it with the front desk, and exited the building, at about 10:35 or 10:40. She proceeded through the same footsteps that she had used to enter the building. Again, she did not use any steps, and while on the landing she did not see any railings. As she was attempting to walk in her own prior footsteps, she slipped and fell, landing on her right knee, right hip, and right shoulder.

Claimant did not tell anyone with the Department about the fall and neither a Department employee nor another client saw Claimant’s accident or helped her up. When she returned to the facility on December 27, 2000, there was no snow, no slope, and the sidewalk was flat.

Witness Reed drove claimant from the scene directly to West Suburban Hospital where they x-rayed her right side and then released her. The next hospital visit was to Cook County Hospital on January 4, 2001. Claimant experienced constant and excruciating pain in the period between the initial hospital visit and the follow-up visit. On January 27, 2001 Claimant visited the Department again and at that time reported her fall to a supervisor. The supervisor simply walked away.

Eventually, Claimant was diagnosed as having a torn right rotator cuff and underwent surgery to repair that condition. Thereafter she underwent to regimen of physical therapy. Claimant still complains of pain and loss of range of motion up to the present.

Witness Ellen Reed also testified. Ms. Reed testified that on the date of the accident she drove Claimant to the subject facility. Thereafter, she saw Claimant attempt to exit the building by walking through the footprints. Ms. Reed did not get out of her car. She did observe that some man came by and helped Claimant get to her feet.

[*224] Finally, Jaime Roman, the Office Administrator, testified both as an adverse witness and as a direct witness for Respondent. Mr. Roman is the local office administrator for the Northwest office of the Department of Human Services. At that facility the Department processes and determines the eligibility for food stamps, medical and cash assistance for its clients. This facility services from 200 to 300 customers daily. Mr. Roman testified that the facility also handles the AEBB program, which provides benefits for the elderly, blind and disabled, and includes a tenant, food stamp, and medical program. At the time of the incident, he was the assistant local administrator for said office and was in charge of ten supervisors. His duties in that position entailed making sure that work was processed in a timely manner, assuring that all eligibility factors were met, and seeing that the correct amount of benefits were provided. Mr. Roman testified that in December of 2000 some elderly as well as disabled employees worked at the facility.

Mr. Roman testified that the Department was responsible for maintaining the building and removing ice and snow. Ground laborers are responsible for picking up garbage, and mopping and sweeping the facility. Mr. Roman testified that there are six running mats, four in the front and two in the back, which absorb the water and snow that employees and customer trek into the building.

Mr. Roman testified that the distance between the curb and the front door of the building is from twenty to thirty feet. The building itself is rectangular in shape and is approximately fifty feet wide. The facility has two driveways, one on each side. One leads to an employee parking lot on the east side of the building and one leads to a loading dock on the west side of the building. The sidewalk in front of the building runs east to west. There is also a sidewalk that runs north and south and leads into the building. Grass and shrubbery that was once close to the side of that sidewalk was long ago replaced with concrete. Mr. Roman testified that there is no inclined in the front of the building, and that the sidewalk is flat.

There are five steps that lead to the front entrance of the building. The total height of the steps is three feet. There are also railings that go up the steps. The landing at the top of the steps is flat and from the landing to the front door is another four or five feet. There is also an access ramp to the side of the front door for disabled customers to use. This fifteen-foot ramp is flush against the building and travels across the building in an upward direction. Along the landing and along the ramp going down the building, there are guardrails. The only way that a customer can get into the building is by the steps or the ramp. According to Mr. Roman, it is not possible for someone to cut through the area of the cement and climb onto the landing since that would necessitate climbing over the railing. The distance from the ground to the top of the railing is about six feet.

Mr. Roman testified that when there is an accident on the premises, or a customer needs medical attention, an incident report is filled out, and appropriate action is taken. All the incident reports make their way to Roman. The office manager usually handles general complaints about maintenance issues, but these maintenance complaints would also be channeled to Roman, as would complaints about snow on the pavement, or inability to enter the building because of snow.

Mr. Roman testified that the procedure in 2000 for removing snow was that the maintenance crew would shovel the snow and distribute salt. The customer entrance would be shoveled first, then the employee entrance. Mr. Roman testified that if he [*225] gets to the office early and it is snowing, he will personally start shoveling until the grounds laborer arrives at work. According to Roman the shoveling of snow is a priority because the office services a rather large number of people and the Department has to make sure the customers have safe access to the building. The Department keeps shovels and salt in the dock area of the building.

Mr. Roman recalled that it had snowed nine and one half inches on December 11, 2000, two days prior to the accident. Mr. Roman testified that he did not recall for certain whether any snow had been cleared on December 13, 2000, but he stated that the Department has procedures in place to insure that snow is cleared. He did not recall snow coming up to one’s knees on that date, and he would not expect a large amount of snow to remain in front of the building, or on the steps, because of the high volume of people that the Department services everyday. He would expect any snow on the sidewalks or the steps to be shoveled and salted. Mr. Roman testified that on the day of the accident, the office did not receive any complaints about snow or ice from the staff or customers.

According to Mr. Roman, on December 11, 2000, the date of the snowstorm, approximately 175 customers were seen by caseworkers. This number does not include individuals who just came in to get an application, or the Department’s employees. On that date, the office did not receive any complaints about large amounts of snow on the stairs or sidewalk. On December 12, 2000, approximately one hundred and twenty customers were seen by caseworkers, and the office did not receive any complaints about large amounts of snow on the stairs or sidewalk.

On the date of the accident, by 10:30 a.m., approximately seventy-six customers had been registered. By the end of the day, approximately one hundred more customers were seen by the caseworkers. At no time on December 13, 2000, did the office become aware of an accident that occurred outside the facility. Mr. Roman testimony was that he would expect someone who was injured at the facility to make a complaint.

Legal Analysis

To prevail in a negligence action, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent owed a duty, that there was a breach of that duty, that she sustained damages, and that there was some proximate cause between the alleged negligent act and the claimed damages. Minor v. Illinois, 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 104 (1996).

As Claimant points out in her post trial brief, there is not duty to remove a natural accumulation of ice and snow. When a party undertakes to remove the snow or ice, however, it must be accomplished with reasonable care. Spurgeon v. Alton Memorial Hospital, 285 Ill.App. 3rd, 703 (1996). In the case at bar, Claimant testified that when she arrived at the Department the snow had accumulated to a depth as high as her knee. Claimant’s witness seems to agree. This being the case, if Claimant’s testimony is to be believed, Respondent had failed to remove the snow. Since Respondent had no duty to remove the snow, the mere failure to remove it can in no way be deemed as a breach of duty. Claimant must show that the Respondent had undertaken to remove the snow and did so in a negligent manner. No testimony or evidence brought forward by the Claimant proves that this occurred. On the contrary, the evidence [*226] tends to show that no snow removal of any kind had been attempted, and that the Claimant fell in a natural accumulation of snow. This natural condition negates the duty that Claimant tries to impose upon the Respondent.

In addition to the lack of duty based on the natural accumulation of ice and snow, there is an additional theory on which this court finds persuasive. That is, the “open and obvious” nature of the defect complained about. This is best expressed in Minor v. Illinois, 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 104 (1966), in which it is stated:

If the risk is open and obvious, then the duty of

care does not exist. The basis of the doctrine is

that the owner’s duty to invitees arises only to the

extent of the owner’s superior knowledge of the

dangerous condition. The general rule is that a

landowner has no duty to warn of open and

obvious conditions.

In the instant case, Claimant testified that as she was walking towards the building, that she saw no clear walkway into the building. The snow came all the way up to her knee, the sidewalk appeared to be sloped, and she could see no steps into the building. Claimant felt that it was dangerous to be walking in that area, but despite this fact she exited the building in the same manner that she used to enter it, even using the footprints that she made on her way into the building.

Under these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that any accumulation of snow as described by Claimant would qualify as an open and obvious condition. Accordingly, Respondent owed no duty with regard to an open and obvious condition, and the claim must be denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this claim is denied.