Lachanda Aikas v. State of Illinois

Claimant filed her Complaint for personal injury on September 13, 2005.

Claimant seeks damages under a premises liability theory for a fall she suffered at the Southern Illinois University ("SIU"), School of Law building.

A hearing was held before Commissioner Ysursa on November 18, 2008.

Claimant appeared through counsel James Christy.

Respondent was represented by attorney Phyleccia Reed Cole and legal assistant Jo Beth Weber.

I. Factual Background

This case arises from a slip and fall by Claimant on July 23, 2004.

Claimant

fell in a hallway in the SIU School of Law building between the law library and the loading dock behind the building.

Prior to the start of the hearing the parties [*167] stipulated to medical bills.

Respondent had no objection to the reasonableness of the medical charges.

Respondent had no objection that the injuries suffered and medical care rendered was causally connected to the fall of Claimant as alleged in the Complaint.

The only dispute between the parties is liability.

The first to testify on behalf of the Claimant was her mother Shereta Dreux.

At the time of the incident Dreux was an employee of SIU and worked in the circulation department of the law library.

Dreux testified that on the date in question, her daughter and granddaughter came to visit her at the law library in order to say goodbye because they were moving to Tampa, Florida.

Claimant and her daughter arrived between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.

They visited with Dreux for about 10 to 15 minutes and then proceeded to leave out of the rear of the building because Claimant's husband was parked behind the building near the loading docks.

Dreux, Claimant and her daughter proceeded to walk down a hallway towards the loading dock exit.

Dreux testified that she and her granddaughter were behind Claimant.

She stated that she and her granddaughter were upset because of the imminent move to Florida.

Dreux testified that she observed Claimant begin to fall, attempt to grab some lockers to prevent her fall, and ultimately fell on her left knee.

After the fall, Dreux noticed water on the floor and observed Claimant's pants were wet.

Dreux testified that the location of Claimant's fall was just outside the janitor's office and utility closet.

She continued that there was a mop and bucket near the area of the fall.

After the fall, Dreux notified the janitor in the office, David "Cotton" Ferrell, and then proceeding to inform building administration of the incident.

Dreux stated [*168] that Ferrell, a SIU painter, Neil McCall, and some others assisted Claimant up and placed her in a chair with wheels.

Claimant was transferred to her husband's vehicle.

Dreux testified that she did not have any knowledge of the medical care Claimant received.

She stated Claimant has complained of pain in her left knee ever since the fall.

She stated that she has observed Claimant having difficulty walking and standing for extended periods of time.

Dreux testified that she was unaware of any problems Claimant had with her left knee prior to the fall.

The next to testify was Claimant's daughter Calaijah Broadnax.

Broadnax

confirmed the testimony of Dreux, her grandmother.

She stated that her mother was walking in front of her and her grandmother when she fell.

She testified that her mother slipped on some water on the tile floor in the hallway.

She stated that her mother's pants were wet afterwards.

Broadnax confirmed Dreux's testimony that there was a bucket and mop near the area that Claimant fell.

She stated that her mother still has pain in her left knee to this day.

Broadnax was seven (7) years old at the time of the accident.

Claimant testified that she was at the SIU law library so that she and her

daughter could say goodbye to Dreux as they were leaving for Florida due to a job

transfer.

She stated that she was walking down a hallway leading from the law

library to the loading dock when she slipped and fell on a clear liquid on the floor.

She testified that as she approached the area in question she was periodically

looking back at her mother and daughter as her daughter was upset to be moving to

Florida.

She stated that she noticed a bucket and mop.

She fell in front of the

janitor's office and utility closet.

She stated that she never saw any liquid on the [*169]

floor before she fell.

She stated that the bucket was not labeled with a warning for a

slippery surface.

Claimant testified that after she fell she was helped, up into a chair and was

taken to her husband's car.

Her husband took her to the Carbondale Clinic.

At the

Carbondale Clinic she was x-rayed.

She received a brace for her knee and was

referred to Dr. Goalz, an orthopedic surgeon in Herrin, Illinois.

She treated with Dr.

Goalz for approximately five (5) months.

Dr. Goalz referred her to physical therapy

which she undertook at Memorial Hospital in Carbondale.

She was treated on four

(4) different occasions at Memorial Hospital.

She testified that Claimant's Exhibits

1, 2 and 3 were the medical bills for her treatment at the Carbondale Clinic, Dr.

Goalz and Memorial Hospital.

The total of the bills equaled $1,796.74 and she

stated that all bills had been paid.

She testified that she could not work for thirty

(30) days after the fall resulting in $1,250.00 in lost wages.

She stated that since the

fall, she suffers from frequent pain in her left knee.

She stated that she has trouble

with extended walks and pain when she stands for long periods of time.

At the

conclusion of Claimant's case in chief, Claimant's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were admitted

into evidence without objection.

Respondent presented three (3) witnesses.

The first witness was David Ferrell.

Ferrell had worked at SIU for the last 27 years.

At the time of the fall, he was a subforeman of janitors at the law library.

He testified that he heard the fall from his office.

He was in the office at the time of the fall on a break with Neil McCall, an SIU painter.

He stated that about 5 to 10 minutes prior to the fall he entered the janitor's office.

Ferrell confirmed the location of the fall near the [*170] janitor's office and utility closet.

Ferrell confirmed the assistance provided to Claimant and the transfer of Claimant to her husband's vehicle after the fall.

Ferrell

stated that he observed about a 5 to 6 inch wide puddle of water on the floor near Claimant after the fall.

Ferrell stated that he did not observe the puddle 5 to 10 minutes earlier when he entered the office.

He confirmed that if he had noticed the water, it was his duty and the duty of the janitors to clean it up.

He stated that after noticing the water, he got a bucket and mop from the utility closet near Claimant and cleaned the liquid.

He stated that all buckets at SIU have warnings on the sides.

Next to testify was Kristy White.

She is an administrative clerk at the school

of law.

She arrived at the scene after the fall and prepared an incident report.

The

incident report was marked as Respondent's Exhibit 1 and was admitted into

evidence without objection.

The last witness was Neil McCall.

McCall was a SIU painter at the time of the

incident.

He testified that he entered the janitor's office prior to the fall on his break

to meet with Ferrell.

He stated that he and Ferrell heard Claimant fall.

He exited the

janitor's office and utility closet.

He testified that he entered the janitor's office

about five (5) minutes before the fall.

He stated that he never observed any liquids

on the floor either before or after the fall.

He conceded that he was not looking for

liquids.

II. Legal Analysis

To prevail on her claim, Claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the Respondent breached its duty of reasonable care in maintaining

the premises and that the breach proximately caused her injury.

Hardeman, 47 Ill.

[*171] Ct. Cl. at 295 (citing Secor v. State, 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215, 217 (1991)).

Claimant must also

prove that the Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged

dangerous condition.

Minor v. State, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 104, 114 (1998).

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing in this matter, this Court

determines that the Respondent is precluded from liability in that there was no

evidence presented indicating the Respondent was notified of the condition that

allegedly caused Claimant's injuries.

The evidence presented at the hearing

established that prior to Claimant's fall, Respondent had no actual notice of the

water on the floor that created the dangerous condition.

Claimant argues

constructive notice of the condition should be imputed to Respondent by the mere

fact that after Claimant fell, some witnesses testified to seeing water on the floor

near Claimant.

However, to establish constructive notice it must be shown that the

defect was substantial enough and that it existed for a sufficient length of time that a

reasonable person would conclude that immediate repairs or warning signs were

necessary.

Kelly v. State, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 146, 150-51 (1998).

The fact that before

Claimant's fall, not a single witness could testify to observing the water on the floor,

which constituted the dangerous condition, is fatal to Claimant's claim.

There is no

evidence in the record that the defect was so substantial or existed for such a length

of time to establish constructive notice.

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)).

Rather, the State owes a duty of reasonable care in maintaining

its premises.

Hardeman v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 292, 295 (1995) (citing Berger v. Board [*172]

of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 121,124 (1988)).

The evidence

presented at the hearing is deplete of any indication that the Respondent had actual

or constructive knowledge of the water on the floor which is the alleged dangerous

or defective condition that caused the Claimant's injuries.

Claimant therefore is

unable to establish a key element required to recover damages.

As such, Claimant

has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent is liable

for her injuries, and this matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice.