Sandra Knuth v. State of Illinois

ORDER

GAGLIARDO, J.

Sandra Knuth (“Claimant”) brings this action against the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Transportation (“State” or “Respondent”). Claimant filed her Complaint alleging Respondent failed to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. Claimant alleges that because of Respondent’s acts or omissions, she fell and suffered serious injury. A hearing on the merits took place and the parties requested post-hearing briefing, which was granted. There were multiple requests for extensions to complete briefing. On September 18, 2023, the parties confirmed post-hearing briefs were complete.

FACTS

The relevant facts of the incident are uncontested. Claimant resided at a housing facility located in Blue Island, Illinois, on Western Avenue. On the date in question, Claimant had gone out to dinner and returned to her home. At approximately 8:30 p.m., she decided to walk to a nearby gas station to purchase a Gatorade. She had walked to the gas station previously, and she usually took the same route. She walked south down Western on a concrete sidewalk that turned into a path. She would then cross the road to the east side of the street at some railroad tracks, to avoid a vacant lot. She would then walk further south, eventually crossing Western again to reach the gas station. In total it was about ten-minute walk.

After purchasing a Gatorade, she began to walk back to her house. She crossed Western, then walked north, eventually going over the same railroad tracks. Instead of crossing to the west side of Western at that time, she continued to walk north on the east side of street on a path next to Western. At some point that evening, it had begun to rain, and as she approached a manhole cover on the path, she noticed it was surrounded by water. To avoid the water around the manhole cover, Claimant went to step into the street. When she did so, her foot got caught on something, causing her to fall into the street. She attempted to stand up, but immediately fell back down.

A bystander called an ambulance, and Claimant was taken to the hospital for emergency surgery for a severe break to her ankle. She had screws inserted into her ankle, and she underwent extensive physical therapy as part of her recovery.

After the accident, Claimant discovered that her foot had caught on a metal rod protruding from the ground by a few inches. Pictures and testimony indicate the rod was [*241]

about as wide as a pencil. No evidence was presented as to how the metal rod had come

to be there, or how long it had been present.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

I. Claimant failed to prove the State breached a duty owed to Claimant.

Claimant alleges in the Complaint that she was lawfully on State property, and that the State was negligent because it failed to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. In order to maintain a cause of action for negligence, “a claimant must allege facts establishing the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury which proximately resulted from the breach. Gillespie v. State of Illinois, 63 Ill. Ct. Cl. 240, 241-242 (2011) (citing Ondes v. State, 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 272, 275 (1990)).

While Claimant alleges that she was lawfully on State property, the facts do not support the argument that the Claimant was, in fact, an intended user of the property. The State admitted that Western Avenue was a road that it was responsible for maintaining, and that responsibility included the parkway where Claimant fell. However, as held in Gillespie, “[w]hile it is well-settled that the State has a duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes to which the portion in question is devoted, the law imposes no general duty on governmental entities for the safeguarding of pedestrians when they are using public streets as sidewalks.” Id at 242 (citing Wheel v. State, 42 Ill.Ct.Cl. 231, 233 (1990)).

Prior cases such as Gillespie and Wheel make it clear that the State owes no duty to maintain State roads, such as Western Avenue, to be safe for pedestrian use. In this case, there is no evidence supporting the proposition that the land next to Western Avenue was intended for pedestrian use. While sections of the parkway where Claimant fell apparently contain strips of concrete or even sidewalks, as well as a path established by individuals using the land for a walkway, Mr. Stumpner testified that the State did not maintain the area for pedestrian use. Mr. Stumpner testified, and the State has argued, that local municipalities are charged with creating and maintaining any sidewalks adjacent to State roads.

Based on the evidence and applicable law, therefore, the State did not owe a duty to Claimant to maintain the path she was on for her to utilize as a pedestrian walkway.

However, that does not end the analysis, as even a trespasser has the right to not be injured by a property owner’s willful and wanton conduct. In Maikranz v. State, 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 134, 136 (1985), the Court held that “with respect to a trespasser or licensee, the Respondent only owes a duty not to willfully and wantonly injure the person going upon the land.” (citations omitted). A trespasser has been defined as “one who enters the premises of another without permission, invitation, or other right and intrudes for some purpose of his own or at his convivence, or merely as an idler.” Id. (citation omitted).

Claimant was not an invitee or intended user of the grassy strip, and should be considered a trespasser because she was not using the State land as intended. Since the Claimant was not rightfully on State property at the time of the accident, the State only owed the “duty not to willfully and wantonly injure the person going upon the land.” Id.

[*242] In order to prove willful and wanton conduct, it is not required to show the State intended to cause harm, but there must have been an act or omission constituting reckless disregard or substantial danger or consequences, and as such, it is a difficult standard to meet. Olin v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 366, 368 (1996).

Claimant has not established that it is more likely true than not the State either created the hazard or that it was reckless in not discovering the hazard before Claimant’s accident. The pictures and testimony establish that the metal rod sticking out of the ground was approximately the size of a pen or pencil, and was in close proximity to the curb. Therefore, State employees inspecting the area from the road may not have been able to see or notice such an object during routine inspections of the land.

Further, there was no evidence or testimony as to how the metal rod came to be in the ground, or how long it may have been there. No witnesses testified as to seeing such metal protrusion exposed previously, and the State received no complaints from others using the path. Therefore, there is no evidence to support IDOT was reckless in failing to discover it, particularly in an area removed from the roadway and blocked from view by the curb. See Crile v. State, 36, Ill. Ct. Cl. 176, 179 (1984) (claim related to a child falling into an open manhole) (“The unreasonable length of time the defect existed is thus the crucial element in constructive notice. In the instant case, the record reflects that Claimant presented no evidence as to the length of time that the manhole cover was missing.”).

It is the burden of the Claimant to establish the State is liable for breaching the duty owed to her, in this case, refraining from willful or wanton acts or omissions. There is insufficient evidence to conclude the State is at fault for creating or failing to discover the condition that caused the Claimant’s injuries through a reckless act or omission.

For the above state reasons, the Claimant has failed to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. It is hereby ordered that the claim is denied.