Carole D. Hermann v. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

OPINION

Sprague, C.J.

Claimant filed a Complaint for monetary damages. The Complaint alleges that she was injured when she fell on the Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville campus. A hearing was held before Commissioner Ysursa on October 6, 2008. Claimant was represented by Brad L. Badgley, and Assistant Attorney General Bradley R. Bucher represented Respondent.

I. Background

Claimant alleges that she fell when she tripped on an uneven seam on a campus sidewalk causing her to lose her balance and fall off of the sidewalk. She alleges that when she fell off the sidewalk she twisted her ankle on a four (4) inch drop from the edge of the sidewalk to the ground. The twisting of her ankle caused her to fall and break her leg. She alleges due to the fall she broke her right humerus, right knee cap and injured her left shoulder. Respondent asserts that the condition was not unreasonably safe and if it was there is no evidence that Respondent had notice of the condition. Respondent also asserts that Claimant was contributorily negligent.

Claimant testified that on December 2, 2005 she came to SIUE to turn in a paper. Claimant was a 49 year old graduate student at the time. She went to campus with her son. She testified that on the date in question she [*268] parked in parking lot A. She proceeded with her son to tour the campus. After walking around campus she turned in her paper at an office located in Founder’s Hall. After turning in her paper she proceeded to walk from Founder’s Hall to her car in parking lot A.

Claimant testified that she was walking on a SIUE sidewalk when she tripped on a seam of the sidewalk.

She stated that the sidewalk was an asphalt sidewalk. The area where she tripped was a connection seam between two pieces of asphalt. The connection formed a lip wherein one piece of asphalt was approximately a quarter of an inch higher than the other piece of asphalt. Claimant asserts that when she tripped she stumbled and her foot slipped off of the side of the asphalt sidewalk. She stated that there was about a four (4) inch drop from the sidewalk to the ground next to it. This drop caused her to twist her ankle and fall. The fall resulted in her breaking her leg, knee cap and shoulder.

On cross-examination, Claimant conceded that at the time of her tripping she was distracted by someone speaking. She testified on direct that she was walking on the sidewalk at the time of the fall, but on crossexamination Respondent’s counsel pointed out that at her discovery deposition she stated that she was cutting the corner of the sidewalk. She conceded that when she was walking on the date in question she intended to exit on the side of the sidewalk in order to cut a corner on her way to parking lot A. On cross-examination Claimant stated that at the time of her fall the campus lights were coming on and those lights distracted her.

Claimant presented her treating physician testimony of Dr. Leesa M. Galatz via evidence deposition. As this Court finds no liability on the part of Respondent, there is no need to summarize Dr. Galatz’s testimony.

Respondent called Michale Klutho a SIUE police officer. Klutho responded to the scene after Claimant fell. He did not witness the fall so he cannot offer any testimony as to the fall. Klutho did testify that he was unaware of any reports of injuries from falls due to the uneven surface of the sidewalk on campus.

II. Analysis

Claimant has made a claim for negligence. In order to prevail, Claimant must establish a duty owed to Claimant, a breach of that duty, and damages resulting proximately from that breach. Chandler v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 207 Ill. 2d 331, 340, 798 N.E.2d 724, 729 (2003). It is undisputed that the Respondent owes a duty to maintain its premises in reasonably safe condition for the use of the public. Daniels v. State of Illinois, 53 Ill.

Ct. Cl. 116 (2000); Bahl v. State of Illinois, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 120 (1997). In order to establish the breach of the duty [*49] Ill. Ct. Cl. 120 (1997). While Respondent owes a duty of care, it is not an insurer of the safety of persons who visit its property. Id.

The Respondent had a duty to maintain its property in reasonably safe condition. Claimant asserts that Respondent breached this duty by having a sidewalk with a seam that results in an even surface. Claimant asserts that this uneven surface constituted an unreasonable tripping hazard. Claimant further asserts that the four (4) inch drop from the asphalt sidewalk to the ground is unreasonable. Claimant bears the burden of proving that the sidewalk was unreasonably safe.

Respondent is not the insurer of safety for all that walk on its property. In order to be liable the hazard must be so unsafe that a reasonable person would demonstrate an unreasonable hazard. In this case, the evidence does not demonstrate an unreasonable hazard. Respondent cannot guarantee that every sidewalk is perfect.

Certainly Respondent is responsible for hazards that it creates but common sense dictates that an uneven sidewalk is not an unreasonable hazard. Further, the evidence in this case indicate that Claimant was distracted by others speaking and by the campus lights coming on at the time of her fall. Finally, Claimant testified that she was intending to exit the sidewalk to take a shortcut. While Respondent still owes a duty Claimant must assume responsibility when she exits the designated sidewalk.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant’s claim is denied.