VIOLET JACKSON, Claimant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged negligence for injuries from a sidewalk defect on March 30, 2001. The court granted summary judgment for respondent because claimant failed to prove respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect.
Statutes cited: 735 ILCS 5/2-1005; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1005 (2007); 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c)
Cases cited: Freeman v. State, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 329, 334 (2003); Abrams v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill. 2d 251, 257, 811 N.E. 2d 670 (2004); Darden v. Kuehling, 213 Ill. 2d 329, 335, 821 N.E. 2d 227 (2004); Laughary v. State of Illinois, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 187 (2000); Simpson v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 76 (1985); Nolan v. State, 36 Ill. Ct. Cl. 94 (1983); Bahl v. State, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 120 (1997)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Practice and Procedure-Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other relative matters on file show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Negligence-Burden of proof, preponderance of evidence standard- Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a dangerous or defective condition existed, that Respondent knew or should have known of the condition, and that the condition proximately caused Claimant’s injury.
- Negligence-Claimant fell on a sidewalk at UIS. There was no evidence presented that established Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous or defective condition of the sidewalk.
ORDER
STORINO, J.
This cause comes before the Court on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the Court having reviewed the court file, and the Court being fully advised:
The Court finds as follows:
The University of Illinois at Springfield Board of Trustees (“Respondent”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1005 (2007). In particular, Respondent alleges that (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of a dangerous or defective condition and (2) there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the Respondent’s knowledge of the dangerous or defective condition.
Claimant filed a Complaint against the University of Illinois at Springfield Board of Trustees (“the University”) and the State of Illinois for a cause of action based in tort arising out of injuries she sustained on March 30, 2001, while walking upon a sidewalk located on the campus. Claimant alleges that her injuries were the proximate cause of the University’s negligence in that it failed to properly operate, manage, maintain and inspect the sidewalk, and it allowed a dangerous condition to exist while failing to properly warn the public of the dangerous condition.
[*190] Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits and other relative matters on file show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c), Freeman v. State, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 329, 334 (2003). Once the movant has offered evidence in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the non-movant must present evidence that establishes that there is a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment. Abrams v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill. 2d 251, 257, 811 N.E. 2d 670 (2004). The non-moving party cannot rely solely on the pleadings to establish that there is a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate if the plaintiff fails to establish any element of his claim. Darden v. Kuehling, 213 Ill. 2d 329, 335, 821 N.E. 2d 227 (2004).
It has been well settled that, “the State is not an insurer of Claimant’s safety.” Laughary v. State of Illinois, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 187 (2000) (quoting Simpson v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 76 (1985)). To recover damages, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a dangerous or defective condition existed, (2) that Respondent knew or should have known of this condition, and (3) that the condition caused Claimant’s injuries. Id. In the instant case, this Court shall focus on whether Respondent knew or should have known of the dangerous or defective condition because after considering the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits and other relative matters on file there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the size of the sidewalk deviation, and hence the existence of a dangerous or defective condition.
In order for Claimant to recover, she must prove that Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect that caused the injury. Nolan v. State, 36 Ill. Ct. Cl. 94, (1983); Bahl v. State, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 120 (1997). After reviewing the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits and other relative matters on file in the instant case, there is no evidence that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous or defective condition prior to March 30, 2001. As a result, Claimant failed to establish a key element required to recover damages and Respondent is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. University of Illinois at Springfield Board of Trustees’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of the Respondents, University of Illinois at Springfield Board of Trustees and the State of Illinois, and against the Claimant, Violet Jackson.