Martharine Reynolds West v. State of Illinois

Claimant, Martharine Reynolds West, brings this action against the Respondent, State of Illinois, for personal injuries she sustained as a result of a fall at the Madden Mental Health Center in Hines, Illinois on July 4, 2006. A hearing was held before the assigned commissioner on August 21, 2013.

FACTS

This claim arises from a slip and fall by Claimant on July 4, 2006, at the Madden Mental Health Center, where she was visiting her daughter. At some point during her visit, Claimant proceeded up the stairs located outside of the Administration Building, at which time Claimant slipped and fell on the first step. When describing the circumstances of her fall, Claimant testified that she started to slip when she put her right foot on the edge of the first step and that she felt rocks, stones, and metal beneath her feet. As she started to fall, [*131] Claimant put her right hand in front of her to break her fall and landed on the concrete with her right hand, followed by her right knee and chin. Soon after Claimant's fall, Claimant was taken to the hospital. Claimant was treated for a fracture of the distal right radius and a contusion to the right knee. Claimant's medical records indicate that, prior to the incident, Claimant had knee replacements in both knees and carpel tunnel in one of her hands; however the record is unclear as to which hand. Claimant seeks damages totaling $420,000, for pain and suffering, hedonic damages, and compensation for medical bills related to the aggravation of her preexisting right knee condition, fracture of her right wrist and subsequent carpel tunnel in her right wrist.

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 Claimant's injury. Hardeman v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 292, 295 (1995) (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 that the Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the stairway that Claimant asserts caused her injury. Claimant failed to come forward with any evidence that the Respondent was forewarned in any way of the condition of the step in question. As such, actual notice was not established. Claimant has likewise failed to prove that Respondent had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the step. 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). There is no evidence in the record that the condition of the stairway was so substantial or existed for such a length of time to establish constructive notice. Accordingly, Claimant has failed to establish constructive notice.

Moreover, this Court also finds that Claimant has failed to prove that the condition of the step in question was indeed a dangerous condition.

Claimant asserts that the edge of the subject step was chipped to the point that when Claimant stepped on the step, the chipped area crumbled beneath her foot causing her to lose her balance.

However, the photographic evidence of the step presented at the hearing illustrated that the step was chipped only on a small portion of the edge of a wide, shallow step thus negating any inference that the chipped edge presented a dangerous condition.

The evidence also establishes that the stairs maintained hand railings on both sides of each step.

As such, this Court finds that the condition of the step complained of was not of such a nature that it was foreseeable that an injury would occur.

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, 37Ill. 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 of Trustees of the [*132] University of Illinois, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 121, 124 (1988)). The evidence presented at the hearing is void of any indication that the Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous or defective condition of the stairway that caused the Claimant's injuries. The evidence presented at the hearing also fails to establish that Respondent breached its duty of reasonable care and that the condition of the step was a dangerous condition. Claimant therefore is unable to establish the required elements of her case to recover damages. As such, Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent is liable for her injuries.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that based upon the reasons set forth hereinabove, Claimant's claim is denied and this matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice.