State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. State of Illinois

OPINION

BIRNBAUM, CJ.

This claim is before this Court upon a recommendation from Commissioner Lovero following an evidentiary hearing. Claimant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Claimant”), as Subrogee of its insured Mr. William Kotlow, filed suit before this Court on April 22, 2014, seeking judgment against Respondent, the Illinois Department of Transportation (“IDOT”), in the amount of $8,303.50, plus the cost of suit, for property damage caused when a piece of concrete fell and struck Mr. Kotlow’s vehicle while driving under an overpass on a state highway.

FACTS

On October 14, 2013, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Mr. Kotlow was driving his vehicle, a 2007 Ford van, on Interstate 90 toward Chicago. Mr. Kotlow testified that as he was traveling under the Jefferson Park train station overpass, a piece of concrete struck the roof of his vehicle causing damage. Mr. Kotlow testified that at the time of the incident he did not know what happened but that he was told by another motorist that a piece of concrete fell. Mr. Kotlow testified that he returned to the location of the incident approximately seven to ten days later to review the scene and at that time Mr. Kotlow photographed a large piece of concrete located along the side of the road.

Representatives from IDOT also testified at the evidentiary hearing. IDOT Bridge Maintenance Engineer, Sarah Wilson, testified as to various factors which could cause concrete to fall from a bridge structure, as well as the maintenance and inspection history for the bridge at issue. Specifically, Ms. Wilson testified that there are various reasons that concrete could detach from a bridge structure and fall. She testified that the field inspection of this particular bridge done on January 9, 2014 revealed no evidence of freshly fallen concrete from the bridge. Ms.

Wilson also testified regarding prior instances of falling debris from the subject bridge in May of 2011, February of 2010, and March of 2008. Ms. Wilson testified that inspections and necessary repairs were performed by IDOT following these prior instances. She testified that the bridge at issue was subjected to regular and routine inspections and that IDOT records revealed that the bridge in question was last inspected on March 17, 2012, and was rated a six out of nine, which is considered a “good” rating, with respect to the substructure condition of the bridge. The deck element of the bridge was rated a six and the superstructure condition of the bridge was rated a [*194] five, equivalent to a “fair” rating. Ms. Wilson further testified that at no time did the bridge constitute a hazard to the public. IDOT Litigation Coordinator, Sharon Watson, also testified at the hearing. Ms. Watson testified that her investigation of the reports related to the subject bridge and dating to May of 2013 revealed that no complaints or reports had been made that would indicate any problem with the particular bridge at issue.

The parties stipulated as to the damages in the matter, totaling $8,303.50. The parties’ dispute centers on the origin of the falling concrete and whether Respondent had notice of the defective condition of the bridge at issue.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

It is the duty of the State to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and care of its highways in order that defective and dangerous conditions likely to injure persons on highways shall not exist. Hanawell v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 270 (1995). The exercise of reasonable care requires the State to keep its highways in a reasonably safe condition by using reasonable diligence in such maintenance; however, reasonably safe does not mean perfect. Id. at 274. The mere fact that a defective condition existed, if in fact it did exist, is not sufficient to constitute an act of negligence by the State. Id. at 275. To prevail in the negligence action, the Claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the State breached its duty of reasonable care, (2) the State’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, (3) a dangerous condition or defect existed, and (4) the State had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Id. at 227; Hanawell, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 275. Claimant bears the burden of proving the elements of its cause of action. Id.

Claimant has not met its burden of proof in this matter and has failed to prove that Respondent’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury in this case. Specifically, Claimant has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the piece of concrete that fell and caused damage to Mr. Kotlow’s vehicle was, in fact, a piece of concrete that had detached and fallen from the bridge at issue. The Court has before it only the unsupported testimony of Mr. Kotlow, who testified that he did not actually know what happened but was told by another motorist that a piece of concrete had fallen onto his vehicle. Mr. Kotlow’s testimony alone without any other evidence or witnesses to illustrate the source of the concrete debris is insufficient to meet Claimant’s burden.

Even if Claimant were able to sufficiently prove causation, this Court finds that the Respondent is precluded from liability in that the evidence failed to prove that the Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the bridge at issue. There was no evidence in the record that Respondent had any actual notice that the bridge was dangerous. An inspection of all communication reports related to the subject bridge for the six months preceding the incident revealed that no complaints or reports had been made that would indicate any problem with the particular bridge. Claimant has likewise failed to prove that Respondent had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the bridge. 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 were necessary. Kelly v. State, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 146, 150-51 (1998). Aside from the fact that no [*195] complaints had been registered regarding the bridge for at least six months prior to the incident, the evidence in the record establishes that the bridge was inspected regularly and in accordance with IDOT policies, with the last inspection resulting in a “fair” to “good” rating. Although there were previous instances of debris falling from the subject bridge, such instances took place approximately 2 ½ years prior to the matter at hand and in each instance the defect at issue was properly inspected and repaired. As such, the condition of the bridge was not obviously defective to impute liability to the Respondent.

Illinois law is clear that the State is not an insurer against all accidents that may occur by reason of the condition of its highways. Scroggins v. State, 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 225, 226 (1991).

Rather, the State owes a duty of reasonable care in the maintenance and care of its highways.

Hanawell, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 270. The evidence presented at the hearing is insufficient to prove that the Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the bridge at issue or had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defective condition of the bridge that caused that damage to Mr. Kotlow’s vehicle.

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.