Christie Bush v. State of Illinois

OPINION

JANN, J. The Claimant, Christie Bush, brings this claim in Tort stemming from a slip and fall on a sidewalk located on the University of Illinois at ChampaignUrbana campus on November 13, 2002. Claimant alleges that her fall was due to negligent maintenance of the sidewalk, which was cracked and uneven.

Claimant suffered injuries as a result of her fall and now seeks to recover damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages.

Claimant, a student at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, was walking along a crowded sidewalk located between Lincoln Hall and the English Building on the University of Illinois campus at approximately 3:00 p.m. on November 13, 2002. Claimant testified that weather was overcast and the sidewalk was dry. She was headed west toward the bus stop located on Wright Street. As she approached Wright Street she saw her bus coming and began jogging toward the bus. She testified that she veered slightly to the right but stayed on the sidewalk in order to pass another student who was blocking her path. About twenty feet from Wright Street her foot turned and rolled and she fell to the ground. Ms. Bush testified that she looked back at the sidewalk to see what had caused her fall and that is when she saw the crack in the sidewalk.

Claimant and Respondent introduced photographs of the sidewalk and area where the fall occurred. Claimant testified that the depth of the crack was approximately one inch. After her fall, Claimant was unable to get up because her foot would not support her weight. A professor and another student stopped to assist her. They helped her off the sidewalk and contacted 911. The professor waited with her until the paramedics arrived.

Ms. Bush was taken to Carle Foundation Hospital Emergency Room where she was treated by Dr. Jens Yambert. Claimant’s right foot was x-rayed and she was diagnosed with a non-displaced fracture of the fifth metatarsal. She was given a pair of crutches and a supportive brace, which she wore for six weeks. She received follow-up care from Dr. Sobeski, an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Sobeski testified in an evidentiary deposition that he last saw Claimant on January 2, 2003. A follow up x-ray showed that the fracture had healed and Dr.

Sobeski’s notes indicate that Ms. Bush was not experiencing any significant discomfort in her foot.

Claimant testified that a few years later, in January 2005, she was jogging across a parking lot on the university campus when her foot rolled and she fell exactly like she did when she broke her foot in November 2002.

Claimant was treated in Carle Emergency Room and diagnosed with a sprained ankle. Claimant alleges, without providing expert medical support, that the fall and ankle injury in 2005 was caused by a weakening in the ankle as a result of the 2002 fall and injury.

Claimant claims medical bills in the amount of $1,889.53. These bills arise out of both the treatment for her foot fracture on November 13, 2002 and [*344] treatment for the ankle injury in 2005. Claimant also seeks lost wages. She missed six weeks of work at her part-time job as a result of her accident. She claim lost wages in the amount of $600.00. Claimant seeks damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $15,750.00.

Analysis

The State is not an insurer of the safety of persons visiting its grounds, but rather such visitors are owed a duty of reasonable care in maintaining the premises. Berger v. State (1988), 40 Ill.Ct.Cl. 120. This Court has held that in order for a claimant to recover in a negligence action involving defects in a sidewalk, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that, (1) a dangerous condition existed on or around the sidewalk, (2) the State knew or should of known of this condition, and (3) that this condition caused Claimant’s injuries. Laughary v. State (1992), 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 187.

Illinois courts have observed that “minor” defects in a walkway are generally not actionable. Slight inequalities in the levels of sidewalks and other minor defects frequently found in traversed areas are not actionable unless the defect in the sidewalk is such that a reasonably prudent person should anticipate some danger to persons walking on the sidewalk. Warner v. City of Chicago, 72 Ill 2d. 100, 103-04 (1978). This Court has recognized that “no mathematical standard can be adopted in fixing the line of demarcation, and that each case must be determined upon its own particular facts and circumstances”. Cheapan v. State (1998) 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 201, 206.

Courts have generally required that a sidewalk defect be at least two inches in depth to be actionable at law. The Illinois Supreme Court held that a two inch sloping height variation between two sidewalk slabs located near a curb on a heavily traveled street was actionable. Arvidson v. City of Elmhust, 11 Ill.2d 601 (1957). In West v. City of Hoopeston, 146 Ill.App.3d. 538 (Ill.App.Ct. 1986), the plaintiff tripped on a cracked and uneven portion of sidewalk. The Illinois Appellate court found that depth of the crack, measuring only inch, was slight, but that the two inch wide broken area between the slabs was sufficiently wide that a reasonable man could anticipate danger to persons walking upon it affirmed the verdict. Id. at 543.

In Warner v. City of Chicago, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict for a plaintiff who tripped on a raised slab of sidewalk. In Warner, the plaintiff tripped over a raised slab of sidewalk that was covered by a inch of snow. The plaintiff estimated that the slab was raised approximately two inches.

A city investigator testified that he measured the raised slab 5 years after the accident, and found it to measure 1 1/8 inches. The Illinois Supreme Court reasoned that a 1 1/8 maximum height variation would typically be too slight to be actionable due to the minimal nature of the defect but found that the jury could reasonably have believed that the plaintiff’s testimony more accurately described the condition of the sidewalk at the time of the occurrence. The Warner court also considered that the defect was not apparent because it was [*345] obscured by snow and upheld the verdict for the plaintiff. The court emphasized that its holding “should not be construed as diminishing the force of the general rule that a municipality is not liable for minor sidewalk defects” Id. at 504.

Illinois courts have consistently found that differences in height of less than two inches are too minor to be actionable. Birck v. City of Quincy, 241 Ill.App.3d. 199, 122 (1993). In Gleason v. City of Chicago, 190 Ill.App.3d. 1068 (1989), the Illinois Appellate Court held that a one-fourth inch crack was too slight to be actionable as a matter of law. Similarly, this Court has held that a “one inch variation where no complaints had never been made is an example of a variation so slight that it would not be actionable as a matter of law”.

Samuelson v. State (1986), 38 Ill.Ct.Cl. 257, 262.

In this case, the alleged defect is a crack, not a difference in height between sidewalk slabs. It is uncontested that the crack in the sidewalk measured approximately one inch both in depth and width. Claimant’s counsel asserts that the height differential alone should not be the dispositive factor in determining liability. Claimant’s counsel argues that a defect that might be too minimal to be actionable in one location, such as a residential area, may be considered unacceptable in a commercial area, such as the busy university sidewalk where Claimant fell.

Even considering the location of Claimant’s fall, we find that the one inch crack in the sidewalk is de minimus. Based on the evidence we find that a one inch crack in a sidewalk is too minor to be considered a dangerous condition and is not actionable as a matter of law. In addition to failing to prove the existence of a dangerous condition, Claimant has also failed to present any evidence to show that the State had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect. This court has consistently held that, in order for a Claimant to recover in a negligence action involving defects in a sidewalk, the State must have had actual or constructive notice of the defect that caused the injury.

Nolan v. State (1983), 36 Ill.Ct.Cl. 194, 199. Therefore, the claim is denied.