Christopher C. Schmit v. State of Illinois

OPINION

JANN, J. This claim is before the Court following an evidentiary hearing.

Claimant asserts that the State of Illinois piled snow at an intersection in a manner, which blocked the view of a driver attempting to make a left turn, and therefore was the cause of his collision. The following witnesses and evidence were presented at trial.

Claimant, Christopher Schmit, is seeking damages for injuries sustained in an auto collision on January 8, 1999. On said date at approximately 8:15 p.m., Claimant Christopher Schmit (hereinafter “Schmit”) was involve in a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Route 72 (Higgins Road) and Volid Drive in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. He claims that piled snow at that intersection blocked his view of oncoming traffic and caused him to collide with another [*247] vehicle as he attempted to make a left turn. At the time of the collision it was dark and there was no artificial lighting at that intersection. Snow was falling at the time. Schmit was westbound on Higgins and turning left onto Volid. The lanes of east and west bound Higgins, at the intersection of Volid Drive were separated by a grassy median. Volid Drive intersects with Higgins from the south, and Manchester Drive intersects with Higgins on the north. Higgins, at that intersection of Volid Drive has designated left turn lanes for east and westbound Higgins traffic. The speed limit on Higgins was 50 mph. At the time of the collision, there were no traffic control devices at that intersection.

Schmit was injured when he attempted to make a left turn from westbound Higgins onto Volid Drive. Schmit collided with a vehicle that was traveling eastbound on Higgins.

Schmit claims that his view of eastbound Higgins traffic was obstructed by a large pile of snow, piled in the median and in the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins. According to Schmit, the pile of snow in the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins was approximately eight feet tall. Schmit, because of the snow pile, could not see whether any traffic was coming eastbound on Higgins, so he pulled part of his vehicle into the eastbound lane of Higgins. At that time, he saw a vehicle coming towards him and he made the decision to pull forward into the lane and attempt to cross in front of the oncoming vehicle.

Unfortunately, Schmit was unable to clear the lane and his vehicle was struck by the eastbound traveling vehicle. Schmit claimed that the pile of snow, which obstructed his view, was approximately seven to eight feet high. He also claimed that the snow pile extended from the median and into the eastbound left turn lane of Higgins. There was approximately four feet of snow in the left turn lane. Schmit did not specify which lane of Higgins the oncoming vehicle was in when he first saw the oncoming vehicle. Schmit did state that he was unable to see any traffic until he pulled into the inner lane of eastbound Higgins. He stated that he saw a vehicle coming eastbound on Higgins and he made a decision to go forward. Schmit never stated whether the other vehicle involved in the collision was in the curb lane or in the inner lane of eastbound Higgins.

Schmit also testified that he may have driven through that intersection at least once or twice before, during the same month.

Matthew Mara (hereinafter “Mara”) an Illinois Department of Transportation (hereinafter “IDOT”) employee, testified as to the snow removal procedures for Illinois State roads. Mara was the maintenance field technician for the Arlington Heights yard. The service area included the intersection of Higgins and Volid Drive. Therefore, the Arlington Heights yard would deploy the snow removal people for the intersection in question. Mara was the highest ranking IDOT person at the Arlington Heights yard during January of 1999.

Mara testified that his job duties included snow removal services. Mara also testified that IDOT had a Snow and Ice Manual, which set guidelines for snow removal. He testified that when it came to clearing the snow, the first priority was to clear the main roads and keep them open. Clearing turning lanes, shoulders and crossovers takes second priority to the main roads. After the main [*248] road and the turning lanes and crossovers are clear, snow crews were to turn their focus to clearing the road shoulders, parkways and piling snow in out of the way areas in anticipation of future snow storms.

Evidence was also presented that from January 1, 1999 through January 8, 1999 the Chicago land was hit with a series of storms, which dumped over 20 inches of snow on roads. Mara testified that based on the severity of the snow storm that the snow crews would concentrate on the main line roads and leave the clearing of the turning lanes as a secondary priority. He did state that they would usually clear the turning lane and the crossover lane (the space of road in the middle of the intersection) at the same time, but the focus would always be on the main roads. According to Schmit the crossover lane was cleared, but the eastbound left turn lane for Higgins was not cleared on the day of the collision.

Mara also testified that IDOT crews would push snow and pile snow into the road medians. He made it clear that snow should not be stored in the turning lanes. Also, IDOT drivers were not to push snow in a pile so high that it would create a sight problem for drivers. Mara testified that a snow pile of more than three feet may present a sight problem, it varies depending on how high up a driver is seated in his or her vehicle.

Mara also testified that IDOT used a code reporting method to describe the road conditions during a snow storm. IDOT would assign a number to describe the road conditions of each state designated district. One single district could be composed of many square miles. There are six code conditions used by IDOT personnel to chart snow removal operations. They are as follows: Code 6 (Snow covered) this code is used when the pavement on a route or portion of a district is covered with ice or packed snow, Code 5 (25% Bare) is used when there is a narrow strip of bare pavement from 6” to 2’ in each lane where the tires travel, Code 4 (50% bare) is used to report when a strip of ice or packed snow, some 4’ wide remains in the center of the pavement with a 2’ to 3’ strip along each edge, Code 3 (75% bare) is used to indicate that pavement is clear except for a narrow strip on each edge, Code 2 (scattered) this is used when 80% or more of the pavement on a route or portion of the district is clear, Code 1 (all clear) used when the pavement is clear and shoulders are plowed back.

Mara testified that a snow storm hit the Chicago land area on January 1, 1999 through January 3, 1999. The Chicago land area received approximately twenty-two inches of snow in three days. IDOT crews were deployed on January 1, 1999 for snow removal duties. IDOT crews were clearing snow in all the districts, throughout the state. However, there is no way to tell when the left turn lanes and crossover lanes were plowed for that specific intersection by IDOT records. Mara testified as to the various snow removal equipment and personnel available for the job. Specifically, at the time of the collision, Mara’s crew consisted of 36 drivers assigned to 18 snow plow routes within his assigned areas. The drivers had various levels of experience. Most were seasonal help. In heavy snow storms IDOT crews work around the clock to clear the roads. Mara stated that he had driven past the intersection in question [*249] during the January 1, 1999 snow storm and he does not recall any snow blocking the turning lanes. Nor does he recall any complaints regarding any snow blocked turning lanes. Nor does he recall any complaints regarding any snow blocked turning lanes at that intersection prior to January 8, 1999. However, not all complaints of snow piles are logged into the IDOT complaint system. From January 1, 1999 through January 16, 1999, the Chicago land area experienced nine snow storms with accumulation well over 20 inches of snow. There were at least three snow storms from January 1, 1999 through January 8, 1999. each time there was new snow fall the IDOT crews would stop the snow clearing process and start again from step one plowing the main roads. However, Mara stated that the snow crew would not always wait until the through lanes were clear before starting on the turning lanes and crossover lanes.

Donald Walker was hired by Claimant to provide expert opinion testimony regarding the snow removal process and snow visibility hazards. He is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin. He is a licensed civil engineer. He is also the Director of the Transportation Information Center, which provides training to highway officials in Wisconsin, including snow removal procedures.

Walker testified that he reviewed the weather reports for the Chicago land area and recognized that starting on January 1, 1999 and through January 3, 1999, there was over 20 inches of snow accumulation. He described it as a huge snow storm. Also, on January 5th and 6th, 1999 another two inches of snow fell.

Finally, on the morning of January 8, 1999 it again started to snow.

Walker reviewed photos taken of the scene approximately one week after the January 8, 1999 collision. The photos depicted snow piled at approximately four feet high in the Higgins median. The photos did not depict snow piled in the eastbound Higgins left turn lane. There was one photo presented that did show some snow encroaching into the eastbound Higgins left turn lane, but the snow was low to the ground, and did not cause a sight obstruction problem. Walker testified that while first priority is to clear the main through lanes, the turning lanes and crossovers should be cleared at the same time. Based on the photographs the left turn lane had not been completely cleared, nor had the shoulder been cleared of snow. Walker also reviewed the IDOT pavement code system. Under the IDOT system, code one means it is 100% clear, including turning lanes and crossovers, and the other codes represent a different stage in the clean up process. Walker also reviewed IDOT shift reports from January 1 through January 9, 1999, which reported the snow clearing code reading for the Arlington Heights area, which included the intersection in question. The IDOT two hour status report for the Arlington Heights district for January 8, 1999 at 5 a.m. reported a code one clearance.

Walker clarified that the code one reading for January 8, 1999 on the IDOT report did not mean that of the hundreds of miles that are assessed in the report that every foot of road way is cleared. Rather the IDOT report is an overall assessment that each district has recovered from a storm. However, he did state that the photos taken about seven days after January 8, 1999 do not depict a code [*250] one clearance, because there is considerable snow piled high in the median, in the crossover and to a lesser degree in the left turn lane. Based upon the Claimant’s testimony regarding the amount of snow, and the height of snow he encountered on January 8, 1999, it was his opinion that the roads were not in a safe condition at the time of the collision. IDOT created unsafe snow obstructions by plowing snow in the left turn bay of Higgins. Also, IDOT had sufficient time to clear the snow in that an IDOT report dated January 5, 1999 reported a snow clear code of two for the Arlington Heights district. Further, in comparison to the other reporting districts on January 8, 1999, 18 out of 23 reported to be at code one. Therefore, he believes that there was sufficient time to clear the snow from the left turn lane and median. Walker testified that the snow storm of January 1, 2, and 3 of 1999 was a big snow storm - over 20 inches of snow. The clear that snow would take a great effort and time to clear the roads.

IDOT employee James Stumper also testified. Stumper is the IDOT Bureau Chief of Maintenance for District One and a civil engineer by training.

His responsibilities include snow and ice removal efforts for IDOT. He has worked for IDOT for 19 years in various supervisory roles regarding snow and ice removal. He has also been involved in the editing of the Snow & Ice Control Manual for IDOT. Back at the time of the collision, Stumper was the duty engineer for the big snow storm that began on January 1, 1999 for the entire district, which included the intersection of Higgins and Volid Drive. He recalled that a series of storms hit the area starting from January 1, 1999. A major snow storm hit the area from January 1, 1999 through January 3, 1999. State documents indicated that in the evening hours of January 3, 1999 another snow fall began and it snowed until the next morning. Further, another storm began on January 5, 1999 in the afternoon and ended the next day with freezing rain and approximately 3 inches of accumulation. Finally, another storm hit the area on January 7, 1999 and it lasted until January 9, 1999. Thus, in an eight day period all the storms dumped over 25-30 inches of accumulation in the Chicago land area. Stumper went on to explain the IDOT snow clearing method.

Stumper reported that snow cleaning crews are sent out when the snow is falling and their main priority is to try to keep the main roads open, by salting and plowing. His testimony was consistent with that of Mr. Mara, in that once the snow has stopped falling, they go back and clear the roads again and also address clearing turn lanes, shoulders and crossovers. Snow cleaning crews worked through this period plowing snow and salting the roads. Once a storm would stop, then they would switch to clearing the roads, turn lanes, crossovers, shoulders and storing snow in medians. Once a new storm would start, they would stop their clearing process, and switch their focus to plowing and salting the main roads. Snow crews would have to stop, regardless of whether they had completed their snow clearing process, and move to the main roads when it started snowing. Therefore, left turn lanes, crossovers and road medians were often left uncleared in order to attend to the main roads as the first priority for public safety.

[*251] In regards to the IDOT clearing codes, it is Stumper’s opinion that code one does not necessarily mean that every turn lane, crossover and median in a district is 100% clear. Further, in regards to the January 1999 snow storms, he stated that IDOT was unable to address all the snow issues, such as sight distance issues involving snow piles, because of the multiple snow storms and the amount of snow that accumulated in such a short time span. IDOT was not always able to push the snow as far over as it should have been pushed because of the sheer volume of snow that fell - 25-30 inches. The storms were back to back and the IDOT people had to concentrate on keeping the main roads clear and salted. Once the main roads are cleared, then IDOT turns its focus to the turning lanes, crossovers and shoulders. This does not mean that the left turn lanes and crossovers are completely ignored until the main roads are cleared.

Rather the priority is on the main roads and the turn lanes are secondary. Once the main roads and turning lanes were cleared, IDOT snow cleaning crews would focus their operations on pushing the snow back far enough to make room for future snow falls.

According to IDOT policy, IDOT drivers were not required to report sight obstructions caused by snow piles. Stumper also testified that he did not have any detailed information regarding exactly how many inches of snow fell with each storm during that time period, other than what was reported in the IDOT documents. Nor does he have any independent recollection of inspecting the intersection in question any time before the collision.

IDOT claims manager Michael Fitzgerald also testified. Mr. Fitzgerald has been employed by IDOT for eleven years. He is a claims manager for IDOT, and his duties are to oversee and investigate all the claims brought against the Illinois Department of Transportation in a six county area. He explained that the IDOT communication center collects reports from the public, municipalities, state employees and law enforcement as to problems with road conditions. They also receive notices regarding icing conditions and snow conditions. Once a call is received it is transcribed and directed to the proper entity to address the problem. For example, a call regarding a snow obstruction problem would be directed to an IDOT maintenance yard. Fitzgerald testified that he did not receive any snow obstruction complaints regarding the intersection in question for the days preceding and day of Claimant’s collision.

Legal Analysis

This Court has held on many occasions that the State is not an insurer against all accidents, which occur on its highways, but it does have a duty to keep its roads in a reasonably safe condition. National Bank of Bloomington v.

State (1980), 34 Ill.Ct.Cl. 23, Ernest Calvert and Kenneth Williams v. State (1985, Ill.Ct.Cl. 104. This Court has also held that the State of Illinois is chargeable with only maintaining its roads in a reasonably safe condition for the purpose for which they are intended and that Claimant must, in order to prevail, prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent breached its duty a and that breach proximately cause the injuries to Claimant. Ernest Calvert and [*252] Kenneth Williams v. State (1985), Ill.Ct.Cl. 104), Louis v. State (1983), 35 Ill.

Ct.Cl. 741.

The facts and issues in the Louis case are similar to the case at hand.

Id. In Louis, Claimant was involved in an intersection collision allegedly due to a snow pile, which obstructed the driver’s view of oncoming traffic. Louis was involved in a collision at the southbound exit ramp from I-55 and Toronto Road in Springfield, Illinois. The collision happened at a time when that part of Illinois received approximately 11 inches of snow fall in six days. Snow had been piled in a corner at the off ramp as to completely obstruct Claimant’s view of Toronto traffic. Evidence had shown that the piled snow reached a height of up to 10 feet. Claimant was unable to see oncoming Toronto traffic without pulling the front of his auto out into the oncoming lane about six to seven feet into the lane. As Claimant eased out into the lane, he was struck by an oncoming vehicle.

The Louis court determined that the piling snow so as to obstruct Claimant’s view did not constitute negligence on behalf of the State of Illinois.

The court reasoned that for several days prior to the collision in question snow had been accumulating in this area so that by the time the accident occurred there was approximately 11 inches on the ground. This heavy snowfall necessitated a tremendous amount of work on the part of the State, which was obligated to remove the snow. A state engineer testified that the first priority of the State on occasions such as this is to remove the snow and secure the opening of the highway. The court reasoned that a dilemma is created by such a heavy snowfall. A choice must be made whether to try to clear the snow from the roads and pile it in a manner that it will not create any sight obstructions, or to remove the snow by piling it in temporary places until the storm ends and then the snow can be pushed into a safer storage area. The fact that the area received over 11 inches of snow in six days indicated that the State was so thoroughly engaged in keeping the highways open that it did not have time to remove the accumulation of snow piled on the shoulders of the highways.

The Calvert case is also very similar to the case at hand. Id. In Calvert, Claimant was attempting to make a left turn at the intersection of Route 3 and Old Route 3 in Cairo, Illinois. At the intersection, Claimant testified that there were large piles of snow in the median approximately 5 feet high and 20 feet wide, so as to obstruct his view of oncoming vehicles. Claimant testified that he crept out into the oncoming traffic lane to see if there were any approaching vehicles. When he did so, a vehicle approaching struck his automobile. Claimant argued that the State was negligent in piling the snow around the median in question in a manner, which obstructed drivers’ vision.

Prior to the collision, there had been a substantial snowfall of some 10-12- inches, which had accumulated over a period of 3-4 nights and had caused the State to plow the area several times. The Court held again that the heavy snow fall in a short period of time did not allow the State sufficient opportunity to clear the snow from the median at that intersection.

[*253] Similarly, in Schmit, the issue is whether the piling of the snow so as to obstruct Claimant’s view constitutes negligence on the part of IDOT and the State of Illinois. A tremendous amount of snow fell in the area several days prior to this collision. According to the weather report starting from January 1, 1999 up to January 8, 1999 approximately 23 inches of snow fell. Additionally, snow storm continued to hit that area even after the day of the collision. This heavy snow fall required a tremendous amount of effort and work on the part of IDOT to keep the Illinois roads open and clear. Matthew Mara, IDOT field technician, and James Stumper, IDOT chief of maintenance, stated that snow crews were working around the clock to clear the snow. During that time period, it appears that the IDOT crews acted reasonably and attempted to keep the roads open during these heavy snow falls on the facts of record.

Claimant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the State acted negligently and that its acts proximately caused the Claimant’s injury. Hardeman v. State 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 292 (1995). The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the State had a reasonable amount of time to clear any sight obstruction at that particular intersection.

IDOT crews were bombarded with snow storm after snow storm in an eight day period. Accordingly to the testimony, four snow falls occurred from January 1, 1999 to January 8, 1999 with approximately 20 inches of snow. This meant that IDOT would have to stop their clearing process and go back to the main roads four times in an eight day period. Claimant Schmit produced at trial in IDOT communication report, which indicated that the Arlington area (which included the intersection in question) was reported to be at a code 1 at about 4:40 p.m. on January 8, 1999. However, Stumper and Mara clearly indicated that the code ratings for the area gave a general description of the snow conditions. The fact that the Arlington District reported a code 1 for the area on January 8, 1999 does not prove that the IDOT crews had failed to properly clear the intersection of Higgins and Volid Drive, or violated set IDOT policy. The roads were passable and reasonably clear.

Claimant also failed to prove that the eastbound turn lane of Higgins was actually blocked with snow on the day of the collision. Claimant produced photographs taken, about one week after the collision, at the intersection of Higgins and Volid, which shows snow piled in the median at least four feet high.

Since all the IDOT employees who testified stated that the snow piled in the median at that intersection was part of the Arlington district, which IDOT would plow, whatever snow was piled in the median or elsewhere was more likely than not created by IDOT snow crews. However, the same photographs show little snow in the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins. In fact, the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins is mostly cleared of snow in the photo (Photo Exhibit 5).

The snow present in the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins, as depicted in the photo, does not pose a sight obstruction.

This Court recognizes that the Claimant did not assert that the photo depicted the snow pile condition as it appeared on the day of the collision.

However, the Claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence that his [*254] view of traffic was obstructed by a snow pile in either the median or left turn lane. Exhibit 5 photograph of the intersection is taken from a view of a driver who is making a left turn from westbound Higgins. The photograph shows that if a vehicle had turned into the crossway of an intersection, a driver could clearly see both lanes of oncoming eastbound Higgins traffic, even though there is snow piled in the median. Exhibit 5 photo shows that even though snow is piled in the median in excess of four feet, a drive intending to make a left turn from westbound Higgins can see both lanes of oncoming traffic. If there was only snow piled in the median on the day of the collision, the Claimant would still have a good view of both lanes of oncoming eastbound Higgins traffic.

According to the photograph a driver turning left would have a good view of oncoming traffic, by just pulling his car into the crossover. Therefore a driver would have fair warning of any oncoming traffic before making a left turn. As is often the case, Claimant’s failure to produce occurrence witnesses has proved detrimental. Clearly, the driver of the vehicle he collided with might have provided probative testimony.

Claimant’s testimony also leads to the conclusion that he did not act in the best interest of his own safety. He claims he could not see into the oncoming lane, but proceeded. Claimant could see a car approaching at him, yet he still chose to go forward hoping to complete his turn rather than stopping when he saw the oncoming vehicle. While Claimant testified that the front half of his vehicle was in the oncoming lane, it is unclear whether the Claimant could have avoided the collision if he would have chosen not to pull further into the lane of oncoming traffic. Since Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof upon the State’s negligence, the Claimant’s contributory negligence will not be further considered.

There is no evidence other than the testimony of the Claimant, that the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins was piled with snow. Claimant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the negligent acts of the State proximately caused the Claimant’s injury Hardeman v. State 47 Ill Ct. Cl. 292 (1995). Additionally, there were no records of reports made to IDOT of the left lane turn lane at that intersection being blocked with snow. In fact there were no reports regarding any dangerous condition at that intersection by any local or state entity. The photos taken days after the collision did not show snow piled in the left turn lane. The fact that the early January 8, 1999 IDOT paperwork reported a code 1 for the Arlington district in combination with the post dated photos of the intersection showing snow in the median and some snow in the left turn lane, does not prove that the left turn lane was blocked with snow on the day of collision.

While it appears that snow may have been piled in the median of the intersection in question in excess of four feet, snow piled in the median did not obstruct Claimant’s view of oncoming traffic. He clearly stated that it was the snow that was allegedly piled in the left turn lane of eastbound Higgins, which obstructed his view.

[*255] Claimant has failed to prove that Respondent breached its duty of ordinary care under the circumstances, or that assuming an open an obvious hazard did exist. Claimant exercised due care for his own safety if he could not see oncoming traffic. Claimant was well aware that severe weather conditions had existed during the preceding days and since one week before his accident.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this claim be denied and dismissed with prejudice.