Michael S. Winters v. State of Illinois

ORDER

STORINO, J.

This matter coming to be heard on the motion of Respondent, STATE OF ILLINOIS, for summary judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005, and due notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice for the following reasons.

Claimant, Michael S. Winters, filed his premises liability claim before this Court of Claims on September 1, 2005. Therein, Claimant alleged he was caused to fall and suffered injury as a result of the physical condition of property owned and operated by Respondent. Claimant’s discovery deposition was taken on March 15, 2007. Claimant testified under oath to the following facts. On November 6, 2004, Claimant and his wife visited their son at Western Illinois University (WIU) for Parent’s Weekend in Macomb, Illinois. Claimant and his son were to participate in a father/son golf tournament the morning of November 6, 2004, at the Harry Mussatto WIU Golf Course. The Harry Mussatto WIU Golf Course is a typical golf course with greens, roughs, sand traps, and varying [*273] degrees of slopes and hills and declines and inclines. Due to the large amount of rain Macomb had received and the conditions of the golf course, the father/son golf tournament was canceled, and the golf course was closed to the public the morning of November 6, 2004.

During the afternoon of November 6, 2004, the father/son golf tournament remained canceled, but the golf course was reopened to the general public. During said afternoon, the weather was sunny and partly cloudy. However, the ground of the golf course was “wet and spongy” due “to a large amount of rain.” In general, the condition of the golf course was “very wet.” The specific area where Claimant fell “was very wet” and steep. Said wetness was caused by approximately two days of rain that the general area had received prior to November 6, 2004. The wetness of the golf course grounds was solely caused by the rain and no other artificial means contributed to the condition of the golf course.

Claimant slipped and fell after he had hit his ball then turned around to walk down the hill back to his golf cart, at that point, he slipped down the hill and injured his knee. Initially, Claimant thought he struck his knee on a concrete post, however, there is no concrete post in the area. Claimant’s fall was caused by the natural condition of the slope and wetness of the grass due to the rain. Claimant’s fall was not caused by any foreign substance or foreign object.

Respondent filed its motion for summary judgment on July 17, 2007. Claimant was served with said motion and has failed to file a responsive pleading as of the date of this Order. This court bases its decision upon legal precedent and the undisputed facts as admitted by Claimant in his deposition testimony.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper where the undisputed evidence, when construed most strongly against the Respondent, establishes that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c), Lindenmier v City of Rockford, 156 Ill App 3d 76, 85, 508 NE 2d 1201, 1208 (2nd Dist 1987). Although Claimant, as the party opposing summary judgment, is not required to prove his case at this stage, he must provide a factual basis under which he would be entitled to judgment. Carter v Dunlop, 138 Ill App 3d 58, 69, 484 NE 2d 1273, 1281 (2nd Dist. 1985). On Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Claimant has an affirmative duty to bring forth facts and evidence of a cognizable cause of action. Id. The purpose of summary judgment proceedings is to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist which should be tried. Purtill v Hess, 111 Ill 2d 229, 240, 489 N E 2d 867, 871 [*274] (1986), Graf v St Luke’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, 253 Ill App 3d 588, 591, 625 NE 2d 851, 854 (2nd Dist. 1985)

OPINION

Based upon the undisputed facts admitted by Claimant, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the cause of Claimant’s fall. Claimant’s discovery deposition is replete with admissions that the wet condition of the ground which caused his fall was due to rainfall, a naturally occurring event. Claimant further admitted that the condition of the ground that caused his fall was not due to any affirmative action taken by Respondent. It is undisputed that Claimant’s fall was caused by a natural condition on Respondent’s property. As such, there is no factual basis that would entitle Claimant to judgment in his favor and Respondent is not liable for Claimant’s injuries or damages as a matter of law.

When presented with questions of landowner liability and naturally occurring conditions on and of property, courts have relied upon the natural accumulation rule. Burns v Addison Golf Club, Inc., 161 Ill App 3d 127, 130- 31, 514 NE 2d 68, 70 (2nd Dist 1987). The natural accumulation rule states that liability exists only where it is found that a defendant was responsible for an unnatural accumulation of water, ice, or snow, or an aggravation of a natural condition which caused a plaintiff’s injuries. Tittle v State of Illinois, 32 Ill Ct. Cl. 478, 481 (1978). “The law is well settled in Illinois that no liability is incurred for injuries resulting from a fall on snow or ice which has accumulated as a consequence of natural causes where the accumulation or condition is not aggravated by the owner of the premises.” Burns, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 130, 514 N E 2d at 71.

To avoid dismissal on summary judgment, Claimant is required to show that he was injured as a result of an unnatural condition of Respondent’s premises. Burns, 161 Ill App 3d at 129, 514 N E 2d at 70. Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Claimant, no facts exist, and no reasonable inferences may be drawn from the facts that would lead to the conclusion that Claimant was injured as a result of anything but a natural condition existing on Respondent’s property. Therefore, liability for Claimant’s injuries may not be implicated upon Respondent.

Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the claim herein is dismissed with prejudice.