Mathew Vettikattu v. State of Illinois

ORDER

Claimant seeks compensation for damage to his car caused when he drove into an unmarked road hazard. The case was heard on October 8, 2024. Claimant appeared pro se. Claimant is not proficient in English; therefore, his daughter interpreted for him throughout the proceedings. The parties were permitted to try the case without a court reporter due to Claimant’s indigency.

Claimant testified that he was driving his car at or below the speed limit on Ballard Road in Des Plaines, Illinois, on November 30, 2022, at approximately 5:30 a.m. He had his headlights on as the sun was just starting to rise. He did not see and was not prepared for an unpaved depression (he called it a “ditch”) in the roadway. He drove the car into the hole causing extensive damage to the car’s undercarriage. Claimant surmised that the road was under some type of construction. There was no warning to motorists about the construction or the hole in the roadway. Claimant was certain that he would have been able to avoid the accident if he had been warned about a possible road hazard.

Claimant filed a police report two weeks later. He explained that he only filed the report after he was advised by a friend or family member that he could seek damages from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for the cost of repairs. Claimant drove home after his mishap but did not drive the car again until he drove the car to a gas station a few days after making his police report. The gas station attendant declined to do the repairs but told Claimant that the car was unfit to drive. Claimant then had the car towed to an automobile repair shop but decided the estimate for the repairs was too high. He had [*219] the car towed to a different shop which provided a significantly lower estimate. Claimant then proceeded to have the car repaired.

Claimant submitted a receipt showing $2,922.00 as the cost of the repairs. He submitted receipts showing $100.00 and $120.00 as the cost of the two tows. He also seeks reimbursement for two cab rides that he took to medical appointments before the repairs to the car were completed. He estimated that the rides were $75.00 each. He could not say when the rides occurred or how far it was to the doctor’s office and provided no receipts.

Claimant provided documents showing that he contacted IDOT seeking reimbursement for the cost of repairs. IDOT wrote to Arrow Construction Company asking Arrow to refer the case to its insurer because, apparently, the Company recently had contracted to perform some type of road construction in the area where the incident occurred. Arrow wrote back to IDOT denying responsibility, stating only that it investigated and determined it had finished paving at the time of the incident. IDOT then informed Claimant that he would not receive compensation for his damages.

Last but not least, Claimant introduced a photo and video of the roadway. He stated that he took both with his phone at the scene immediately after the mishap. The photo and video show a rectangular cut out in the pavement that is several feet long and almost the entire width of the lane. The unpaved portion is at least one inch lower than the pavement. The ground inside the cut out is comprised of dirt and rocks; in some spots, it is very rough and uneven. The video shows words and arrows painted on the roadway surrounding the cut out. The size and shape of the cut in the roadway as well as the markings on the road fully support Claimant’s characterization of the area as a construction zone.

The State submitted a Departmental Report. According to the Report, Ballard Road is under the maintenance of IDOT. A diligent search of records by IDOT showed no complaints or reports regarding the location at issue for the 30 days preceding Claimant’s incident. IDOT traffic volume records indicate that the average daily traffic at the location is 25,500 vehicles. Neither party presented any evidence regarding the type of construction work that was being performed or who was doing the work.

[*220] Although the State is not an insurer of motorists on its roads, it does have a duty to keep the roads reasonably safe and to warn motorists of hazardous conditions. Mathis v. State, 23 Ill. Ct. C1. 101, 106 (1959). The State argued that there is no record of any complaint or accidents involving the highly traveled section of road at issue in this case. Therefore, according to the State, IDOT did not have notice of the defect in the roadway and should not be held liable for Claimant’s damages.

The State is correct that it will be deemed liable only for road conditions that were known or should have been known to IDOT employees. See Stills v. State, 41 Ill. Ct. C1. 60, 62 (1989). Receipt of a complaint or knowledge of an accident may be required to show actual or constructive knowledge of a pothole or other unplanned road hazard. In this case, however, the dangerous condition was the result of ongoing road construction. Even if the construction is being performed by a third party, IDOT is responsible for knowing where and when work is being performed on the roads and advising motorists of possible hazards. Garrett v. State, 22 Ill. Ct. Cl. 343, 350 (1956). See also City of Springfield v. Scheevers, 21 Ill. App. 203 (3rd Dist. 1886). We find that IDOT was negligent in failing to make sure that appropriate warning signs were placed in the vicinity of the construction and that negligence was the cause of the damage to Claimant’s car.

We find the State liable for the cost of repairs and the two tow jobs. Without further information about the cab rides or documentation of the cost, Claimant will not be reimbursed for those. Claimant is awarded $3,142.00 in full satisfaction of this claim.