MELVIN CHURN, Claimant v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, slipped on standing water in a shower area at Danville Correctional Center, alleging negligence. The court denied the claim, finding the claimant more than 50% at fault because the wet condition was apparent and he had a duty to proceed with due care.
Statutes cited: 735 ILCS 5/2-1116
Cases cited: Duble v. State, 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 87, 91 (1967)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Prisoners and Inmates-duty to provide reasonably safe conditions-users of smooth-surfaced floors must use caution. The State of Illinois owes a duty to inmates of penal institutions to provide reasonably safe conditions, but smooth surfaces on floors are necessary so that the premises can be cleaned and made sanitary, and users are expected to conduct themselves with awareness of conditions where terrazzo or other smooth-surfaced floors are encountered.
- Same-slip and fall in prison shower-inmate was contributory negligent-claim denied. The evidence in an inmate’s claim arising out of a slip and fall in a prison shower showed that the inmate was more than 50 percent contributory negligent in failing to proceed with due care on the wet shower floor, and his feet and legs were not shackled or restrained in any way, and on that basis his claim was denied.
OPINION
Sprague, J.
The Claimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeks judgment against the Respondent, State of Illinois for injuries sustained by the Claimant due to a slip and fall in the shower area of the Danville Correction center facility on May 31, 2002.
The Claimant’s Complaint alleges that there was standing water in the shower area and he slipped while exiting the shower and fell injuring his knee.
The
Claimant seeks $75,000.00 to compensate for permanent injuries and $10,000.00 for bodily pain and mental anguish.
The Claimant subsequently filed an Amended Complaint which alleged that the Respondent was negligent by: (a) failing to properly maintain a shower drain; (b) failing to install ingress and egress devices in the shower; (c) installing a shower floor with a slippery surface; and, (d) failing to repair said shower after actual and constructive notice that many inmates over a period of years were slipping and falling in said shower.
The Claimant testified that he stepped outside the shower area over a lip (water containment wall) into a pool of standing water and slipped causing him to fall upon his knee.
The Claimant alleges that his injuries occurred as a result of the fall.
Medical records were submitted in the Department Report, but there was no specific support for the claimed permanent damages.
[*125] The Respondent filed is Departmental Report together with two (2) other documents for purposes of impeachment.
These exhibits addressed the Claimant’s testimony as to the date of the accident and the Claimant’s certification as a nurse’s aide.
Also, the Departmental Report included a response to Claimant’s grievance filed in this matter wherein the Respondent acknowledged in its recommendation that “the showers will be overhauled.”
This recommendation was in response to Claimant’s concern about “standing water in the shower area.”
Further, the Respondent called witness, Carl Erickson, a licensed plumber employed by the Danville Correctional Center, to testify in this case.
Witness
Erickson testified that standing water in a shower area is a priority problem which requires immediate care and attention.
Further, witness Erickson testified that there had been no complaints or notices about standing water in the subject shower area prior to the Claimant’s slip and fall.
Although the Respondent’s witness, Mr. Erickson, stated that some repair in the shower areas to repair the decks and shower basins to prevent water leakage had been initiated in 2003 as part of ongoing maintenance at the facility, he maintained that there had been no specific complaint about standing water at the location of the slip and fall.
This is a difficult case because it appears from the record that some improvements to the Danville shower drainage areas were planned and implemented after the Claimant’s fall.
At the same time, there is testimonial evidence that there had been no prior complaints about “standing water” outside the shower area.
Based on these somewhat contradictory positions, it appears that the source of the conflict may be attributable to general ongoing, planned maintenance at the facility with respect to water drainage as opposed to specific non-routine problems which require immediate plumbing attention.
Further, it appears that individuals may differ on what one defines as “standing water” or a “wet floor.”
Finally, a wet floor is inescapable in a shower area.
Weighing this evidence, we must return to the Complaint wherein Claimant stated that his “knee was injured as a result of falling in standing water.”
The
Claimant also testified “and when I stepped out there was standing water and I thought maybe someone had used this bathroom and it may have flooded.”
The
Claimant also testified that he wears glasses due to nearsightedness, but this vision issue does not detract from his ability to see near objects.
This Court has pointed to the factor of concealment or lack of knowledge in slip and fall cases as being an important element of proof.
For example, in Duble v. State, 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 87, 91 (1967), this Court indicated that recovery could not be had in a slip and fall situation if the danger was, or should have been, apparent to the Claimant.
As in the Duble case, there is no proof in this case that the wet or standing water condition of the floor was in any way concealed from the Claimant; and, indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that the Claimant observed this condition as he stepped from the shower area.
For this reason, it is the finding of this Court that though a dangerous condition existed and the State was aware of it, the Claimant was also aware of the condition and had a duty to proceed with due care.
We find that the slip and fall was more than 50% the fault of the Claimant due to his special awareness of the situation.
As the Claimant’s negligence was more than 50% responsible for the accident, he may not recover. (735 ILCS 5/2-1116.)
[*126] It is therefore the order of this Court that this claim is DENIED.