Patrick Butler v. Illinois

Claimant, Patrick Butler, was employed by the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways. On July 6, 1950, Mr. Butler was one of a group of maintenance employees engaged in rebuilding shoulders on the right-of-way of Illinois Route No. 142 in Saline County, north of Eldorado. The work was being done at a point approximately four miles north of‘ the junction of Illinois Route No. 142 and Saline County SA Route No. 10. At approximately 2:45 P.M., Mr.

Butler was backing a truck loaded with dirt into an area washed out of the highway shoulder. As the truck wag backed up to the eroded area, the edge of the shoulder gave way. This caused the back of the truck to fall into the depression. Mr. Butler, thinking the truck would turn over backwards, jumped from the truck cab, and fell to the ground near the edge of the depression. The truck did not turn over, but the front end was raised into the air, and swung around in such a manner that, when the front wheels came down, they pinned Afr, Butler’s legs to the ground.

The Division had Mr. Butler taken to the Ferrell Hospital Clinic at Eldorado, where Dr. N. A. Thompson treated him.

July 7, 1950, Dr. Thompson reported as follows: “Patient states that while hauling dirt to dump and fill in a low place on highway No. 142, the earth gave way beneath the truck. Nature of injury-.

Sprain of left ankle, abrasions. Treatment-Hospitalized. X-Rays-Revealecl no fracture. Estimated date of discharge-September I, 1950. Estimated datt: patient able to work-September 1, 1950. What permanent disability do yon expect?-Apparently none.”

[*21] On August 21, Dr. Thompson sent the following letter to the Division of Highways: “The above named patient has complained of pain and swelling of the left ankle since he was hospitalized on July 6, 1950. X-Ray films taken today reveal partial fracture of the left medial malleolus, and also a partial fracture of the left fibula in the lower third. These fractures were identified by the callus formation thrown out from them.

The old X-Ray pictures were rechecked, and we were still unable to identify any fracture in them.

A firm adhesive brace was put on the ankle, and he was advised to use it as little as possible. He should have complete recovery within six weeks.”

On October 21, Dr. Thompson submitted his final report: “X-Rays-Taken August 21, 1950, revealed partial fracture of the left medial malleolus, and also a partial fracture of the left fibula in the lower third.”

On May lo,, 1952, Dr. John Elder Choisser reported as follows : “Physical examination on this date reveals that there is definite limitation of plantar flexion of the left foot and the ankle joint of about 40%. There is limitation of dorsi flexion of the left foot at the ankle joint of about 30%.

There is approximately 40% limitation of lateral abduction and medial inversion of the left foot at the ankle joint.

It is my professional opinion that the marked limitation of motion of the left ankle joint is due to the old healed fracture of the distal ends of the left fibula and left tibia bones and the accompanying teno-synovitis of the ligaments of the left ankle.

This man has a definite permanent disability of the left leg due to the injury to his left ankle joint area.”

The record consists of the complaint, Departmental Report, answer of chimant to Departmental Report, stipulation waiving briefs of both parties, transcript of evidence, and st.ipulatioa of medical report of Dr. John E. Choisser between the parties herein.

No jurisdictional question is raised. Respondent and claimant were operating under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the accident in question arose out of and in the course of the employment.

[*22] On July 6, 1950, claimant, a widower, was 63 years of age. There were no children under 18 years of age dependent upon him for support. He earned a total olf $2,688.00 in the year preceding his injury.

The compensation rate is the maximum of $15.00 per week. Since the accident occurred subsequent to July 1, 1949, this amount must be increased 50 per cent, or a weekly 'rate of $22.50.

Mr. Butler was totally disabled because of his injury from July 7 to September 30, 1950, inclusive, a period of 12 2/7 weeks. He was paid full salary in lieu of compensation July 7 through July 31, inclusive, in the amount of $180.64. He was paid compensation at the rate of $22.50 a week from August 1 to September 30, inclusive, in the amount of $196.07. Claimant should have received his compensation rate during the period from July 7 to July 31, which would amount to $80.36.

As claimant received $180.64, it is necessary for us to deduct the sum of $100.28 from the award to be granted herein.

From the record before the Court, we are of the opinion that, as a result of the accident on July 6, 1950, claimant has suffered the permanent loss of use of his left leg. Under Section 8 (e-15) claimant will receive 190 weeks at the compensation rate of $22.50 per week, or the sum of $4,275.00, less the overpayment of $100.28, making a total sum of $4,174.78.

An award is, therefore, entered in favor of claimant, Patrick Butler, in the amount of $4,174.78, payable as f OlOTTrS : $2,076.43, which has accrued, less overpayment of $100.28, or $1,976.11;, which is payable forthwith; $2,198.63, which is payable in weekly installments of $22.50, beginning on July 15, 1952, for a period of 97 weeks, with an additional final payment of $16.13.

[*23] The testimony at the hearing before Commissioner Summers was taken and transcribed by Nina Lee Patton of Harrisburg, Illinois, who made charges therefor in the amount of $20.55. These charges appear reasonable and proper.

An award is, therefore, entered in favor of Nina Lee Patton in the amount of $20.55, payable forthwith.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor, as provided in Section 3 of “An Act Concerning the Payment of Compensation Awards to State Employees ’ ’.

OPINION ON REHEARING.

FEARER, J. This cause is before the Court on the petition of respondent for rehearing filed on July 29, 1952, and the order of the Court granting the prayer of the petition for rehearing filed on October 10, 1952. An opinion of this Court was rendered and filed with the Clerk on July 8, 1952.

On June 21, 1954, there was filed in this Court a stipulation wherein claimant by his attorney, and respondent by the Attorney General, Latham Castle, agreed that the medical reports of Gilbert T. Hyatt, M.D., of 1106 West Franklin Street, Evansville, Indiana, who examined claimant on May 16, 1953 and June 2, 1954, should be considered as additional medical evidence in this case, in accordance with the order of the Court entered on October 10, 1952 granting respondent’s petition for rehearing, and further giving leave for the submission of such additional medical evidence as either side might desire.

As stated, claimant was examined by Dr. Gilbert T. Hyatt, and medical reports, dated May 16, 1953 and [*24] June 2, 1954, were sent to Mr. Earl McK. Guy, Department of Public Works and Buildings, Springfield, lllinois, and subsequently filed in this cause.

The Court, in its opinion handed down on July 8, 1952, made an award to claimant for the loss of use of his left leg, which, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act at that time, was fixed at 190 weeks at his compensation rate of $22.50 per week. From this award m7as deducted the sum of $100.28, rcpresenting an ovcrpayment to claimant, as shown by the record in the case.

In considering this matter, we are coiifronted with the medical testimony of Dr. John E. Choisser, ~vho testified on behalf of claimant, and also his medical report, which was filed in this cause as a Supplemental Report, dated May 10, 1952.

At the hearing before Commissioner Frank M. Summers on November I, 1951, Dr. Choisser testified that he examined claimant on September 14, 1951 and August 1, 1951, and took some X-Rays. At that time he learned that Mr. Butler had received injuries to hiis back and left leg on July 6, 1950, while working for respondent. When examined, claimant complained o € stiffness and weakness in his left ankle. Dr. Choisser stated he found there was a limitation of the plantar flexion and dorsi flexion, and lateral abduction of the left ankle. He testified that the limitation of the left ankle was between 25 and 30%, and his examination revealed that the left ankle at the level of the malleoli revealed the left ankle at the distal end to be larger than the right ankle. Anterior-posterior and lateral S-Rays of the left ankle and leg revealed old healed fractures of the distal end of the left tibia and fibula, as well as arthritic changes, which, in his opinion, were due to [*25] trauma. It was further his opinion that Nr. Butler’s injury was permanent in its nature.

He testified that both tibia and fibula were fractured, and that there were arthritic changes in both of them.

He further testified that claimant had lost the partial use of the left ankle. He was further asked by counsel for claimant : “Do you have an opinion from the examination and the X-Ray what percentage he has lost because of his injury?”

The doctor testified that it was his professional opinion that Mr. Butler had a 30 to 35% loss of the use of the ankle.

There was no further medical testimony offered by claimant. However, by stipulation, the Supplemental Report, dated May 10, 1952, hereinabove referred to, and signed by Dr. Choisser, was filed with the Court.

It revealed that by further physical examination there mas a definite limitation of plantar flexion of the left foot and the ankle joint of about 40%. There mas a limitation of dorsi flexion of the left foot at the ankle joint of about 30%, and approximately 40% limitation of lateral abduction and medial inversion of the left foot at the ankle joint. He gave as his professional opinion that the marked limitation of motion of the left ankle joint was due to the old healed fracture of the distal ends of the left fibula and left tibia bones, and the accompanying teno-synovitis of the ligaments of the left ankle. 1% concluded by saying that claimant had a definite permanent disability of the left leg due to the injury in his left ankle joint area.

Dr. Gilbert T. Hyatt’s written report, dated May 16, 1953, and based upon his examination of claimant, revealed subjective findings, as follows : Left lower ex[*36]tremity quite weak; midback region weak and painful, cannot do much bending or lifting; unable to walk on uneven ground; difficulty in walking up or down stairs, and in getting into and out of cars; not able to put much weight on left foot; pain in the left ankle and leg; swelling of left ankle and leg after use ; and, interference with rest at night because of pain.

Objective findings were that he walked with a left sided limp, some atrophy of the left thigh and leg. Motions of the left ankle and left tarsal regions were restricted to about half normal. The left knee jerk and ankle jerk were slightly diminished. Sensation was normal. Motions of the spine were a little restricted in all directions. X-Rays of the left ankle showed old healed fractures of the tibia and fibula ; a little irregularity of the joint surface of the tibia, and osteoarthritic changes beginning about the ankle joint.

In concluding his report, Dr. Hyatt stated that claimant, Patrick Butler, sustained fractures of the left tibia and fibula at the ankle, and a strain of his back on July 6, 1950, and since that time has had pain and weakness in the left lower extremity and midback region.

The fractures have healed, but there is some residual atrophy of the left lower extremity, some restriction of motion of the left ankle, foot, and back, and some traumatic arthritis of the left ankle due to the joint injury. Although his complaints may be somewhat exaggerated, Dr. Hyatt believes that claimant has a true traumatic neurosis superimposed upon his real physical disability. In his opinion, claimant has a permanent partial disability, approximating the loss of threefourths of his left lower extremity.

He wrote a second report on June 2, 1954, which was based upon his examination of claimant at the [*27] Harrisburg Hospital on May 17, 1954. Subjective findings were that claimant continued to have pain in the left ankle, and up the inner side of the left leg; could not go up or down stairs normally, because the left ankle would not hold him, and he had to hold on to something; the medial aspect of the left ankle tended to give way; and, the left ankle continued to swell when he is on it very much. Findings also revealed that claimant was well'developed and nourished; limps on the left lower extremity; and, has no localized tenderness. Dr. Hyatt further stated that from claimant's history he has made no notable improvement since the previous examination on April 10, 1953, and no appreciable changes in the physical examination were noted. Both physically and mentally his condition seemed unchanged from the previous examination.

The measurements of the lower extremities are noted by the chart filed with the Report, dated June 2, 1954.

First, we will consider the ankle. There is no variance in the Report between the left ankle and the right ankle, except under eversion, where the right ankle is 10" and the left ankle 5". Under the heading "Great Toe" have been listed the metatarsophalangeal joint, interphalangeal joint, no difference between the left and right.

Measurements of motion between the left and right leg, abduction, right 35", left 30"; adduction, right 30°, left 25". Internal rotation, right 15", left 10" ; circumferential measurements (thigh) right 16", left 15%". As to all other measurements, they are the same. In the knee the only variance between the left and right is in the measurements of the calf, right llyz'', left 11".

The evidence reveaIs that claimant returned to work as a truck driver in October of 1950, and worked until approximately May 10, 1951.

[*28] Mr. Butler was disabled because of his injury from July 7 to September 30, 1950, inclusive, a period olf 1 2 2/7 weeks. He was paid full salary in lieu of compensation from July 7 through July 31, inclusive, in the amount of $180.64. He was paid compensation at the rate of $22.50 a week from August 1 to September 30, inclusive, in the amount of $196.07. Claimant should have received his compensation rate of $22.50 per week during the period from July 7 to July 31, which would have amounted to $80.36. As claimant received $180.64, it is necessary to deduct the sum of $100.28 from any award granted herein.

From the record before the Court, and additional supplemental medical reports, we are of the opinion that, as a result of the accident on July 6, 1950, claimant has suffered a partial loss of the use of his left leg.

However, in this respect, it is difficult for us to determine from the medical evidence submitted, either by the written reports filed in this cause, or by testimony offered, the percentage of loss of use of the left leg claimant has sustained.

It appears to us that, in referring to the lower extremity of the left leg, the doctors are referring to a line above the ankle joint, and, therefore, me cannot consider that claimant has lost the use of the entire left leg, but will have to endeavor to arrive at a percentage based upon medical findings of the two doctors.

At the time of the injury and the original hearing in this case, Section 8 (e-15) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provided for the payment of compensation for a period of 190 weeks for the permanent loss of use of a leg. Claimant’s compensation rate at said time was $22.50 per week.

[*29] We are hereby modifying the award previously made, and are entering an award in favor of claimant, Patrick Butler, in the amount of $2,137.50, less the overpayment of $100.28, or a total award of $2,037.22, all of which has accrued, and is payable forthwith.

The former opinion allowed $20.55 to Nina Lee Patton of ]Harrisburg, Illjnois, for transcribing the testimony before the Commissioner. These charges appear reasonable and proper, and, since they have never been satisfied, the sum of $20.55 is herewith ordered paid to Nina Lee Patton.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor, as provided in Section 3 of “An Act Concerning the Payment of Compensation Awards to State Employees”.

(N O . 4518-Claim denied.)

EFFIE LINDBERG, Claimant, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Ofiinion fired July 23, 1954.

ARNDTAND WINGARD, Attorneys for Claimant.

LATHAMCASTLE, Attorney General ; MARION G. Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

TIERNAN, STATE PARKs-negligence. Evidence failed to show that the moist condition of lavatory floor caused by condensation of atmosphere, in the absence of other foreign matter, was a dangerous condition, or the result of any negligence on the part of respondent.

Sa~~-negZigence. Where evidence showed claimant was fully aware of conditions of lavatory floor, which were obvious ones, she assumed any risks involved.

NEGLIGENCE-duty to invitee. An invitee assumes all normal, obvious Or ordinary risks attendant on the use of premises.

W HAM, J. This is an action brought by claimant, Effie Lindberg, against respondent, State of Illinois, to recover [*30] $7,500.00 in damages for personal injuries, which she sustained on June 25, 1950, when she slipped and fell upon the concrete floor of a women’s lavatory located in the Mississippi Palisades State Park, which is owned and operated by respondent, State of Illinois. The accident occurred while she was attending a church reunion, as a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ,.

Claimant charges in her amended complaint, filed herein, that respondent leased a portion of said State Park to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ for the period from June 24, 1950 to July 2, 1950. A women’s lavatory was situated on said leased premises, which had a smooth concrete floor sloping in all directions toward a drain, which was countersunk in approximately the center of the floor. Claimant further charges that the lavatory was defectively constructed, and, on June 25, 1950, the concrete floor was moist, wet and slippery, and, therefore, dangerous, all of which respondent either had, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have had notice of said condition in time to remedy the same.

The amended complaint further charges that on June 25, 1950 claimant, as an invitee of respondent’s lessee, was’present in said park, entered the lavatory, and, in making her departure therefrom, was caused to slip and fall, because of the above mentioned dangerous condition, and without any fault on her part. As a result of said fall, claimant sustained a broken hip, which has resulted in permanent injuries, necessitating the expenditure of large sums of money for medical and hospital expenses, for which she asks $7,500.00 damages.

Respondent has filed a general denial to all of said allegations, and further charges in its answer that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ, as lessee of respondent, had assumed responsibility for the rnainte[*31]nance of the premises, and, therefore, any negligence, other than that of claimant, contributing to her fall, was that of the lessee.

Although the question of the status of claimant, as raised by respondent, is one of interest, it will not be necessary to consider it, for the reason that, even assuming respondent owed claimant the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, which question, however, we do not decide, claimant has failed to bear the burden of proving her case against respondent on this theory, i.e., the one most favorable to claimant.

The facts concerning the accident, as shown by the evidence, are as follows: On June 24, 1950, claimant, a widow, 68 years of age, and a resident of Mathersville, Illinois, went to the Mississippi Palisades State Park, as a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ, for a church reunion. The women’s lavatory in question was located on the camping site, which the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ was occupying with the permission of the State of Illinois. Claimant’s exhibit No. 2, being a Departmental Report of the State of Illinois, which was offered in evidence by both claimant and respondent, contains photographs portraying the exterior and interior of the lavatory, the inside measurements of which were 9’6” by 7‘6”. The floor was constructed of smooth cement trowel finish with a drain 9’’ in diameter located in the center of the floor, and with a 2” taper in the floor from the outside walls to the drain.

There were two windows on the south side of the lavatory, and one on the east side. Along one side of the lavatory were six toilet stools, and at the opposite end from the doorway opening into the lavatory were located tmo wash basins. Claimant testified that she had entered [*32] and used the lavatory on June 24, 1950, and did not remember whether the floor was wet or dry on that date; and, that she and a Mrs. Wakeland entered the lavatory at approximately 8:00 A. 11. on June 25, 1950. Mrs.

Wakeland then left the building, and waited for claimant, while she went to the lavatory, and washed her hands. She further testified that at the time there were several girls, women and little children in said lavatory, the stools were occupied, the wash basins were being used, and a total of approximately 8 or 10 persons were standing against the wall opposite the stools. She used one of the stools, and then washed her hands at one of the wash basins. After washing her hands, she started to walk back toward the door. She stated that the floor was wet, and that, as she walked along, she was talking, but watching her steps carefully. Suddenly her foot slipped. She tried to catch herself, put her hand out, and then fell to the floor, as a result of which she sustained a fracture of her hip. She stated that she slipped on the wet floor, and fell at the drain; that the floor vas: da.mp all over. She further stated that, although the light was not burning in the lavatory at the time, it was daylight, and the view was good within the room, and she had no trouble seeing the floor. She stated that, when she entered the lavatory, she was looking at the floor, and saw moisture covering it, which appeared to be caused from condensation. She stated that no one jostled or pushed her, and that she did not nctice any foreign substance upon the floor ; that it was clean in all respects. She further stated that there was no standing water on the floor, but only moisture. Her testimony concerning the condition of the floor was borne out by Mr. Edward R. TVilliams, an official of the church or-. ganization, who went into the lavatory after he was [*33] notified that claimant had been injured. Mr. Orville C. Short likewise testified to basically the same facts. Mrs.

Wakelaiid, who had gone to the lavatory with claimant, stated she did not see Mrs. Lindberg fall, as she had waited outside the lavatory while Mrs. Lindberg washed her hands. She also testified that the floor was wet, but clean, with no foreign substance on the floor ; and further stated that she had no trouble seeing the floor, as the light was good. All of the witnesses testified that on the previous day, that is, June 24, there had been a cloudburst, and that on the morning in question the weather was hot and humid outside, yet cool and comfortable inside. The witnesses further stated that the wet condition of the cement floor was or could be due to condensation arising from the temperature and humid conditions.

It is our considered opinion that the record in this case ddes not show any negligence on the part of respondent, nor the existence of a dangerous condition in the lavatory. There is no evidence in the record establishing that the manner of construction was other than the usual and ordinary type used for a lavatory located in a park.

The only complaint made concerning the condition of the floor was that it sloped slightly, was of smooth concrete construction, and was wet and slippery. From claimant’s brief and argument, it appears that claimant relies upon this fact, contending that the floor became slippery because of condensation, of which condition respondent knew or should have known. It is to be noted that nowhere in the record is there any evidence or argument offered by claimant showing, or tending to shorn, what, if anything, respondent should have done to avoid the condensation, or what other type of construction and -a [*34] design should have been used. This Court should not, and will not speculate upon this question.

It is further to be noted that there is no evidence to the effect that any of the persons, who were likewise using the lavatory at the time in question, and particularly claimant’s witnesses, Mr. Williams, Mr. Short and Mrs. Wakeland, slipped, or had any difficulty in walking \ upon the floor of the lavatory.

The mere fact that the floor was sloping, wet arid slippery does not in and of itself constitute a condition, which in the eyes of the law is a “dangerous condition”.

In the case of Miller vs. Ginaball BI-OS., Inc., 262 N.Y. 107, 186 N.E. 410, the Court, in reversing a recovery of a plaintiff, who slipped on a wet, sloping entrance way constructed of Tennessee marble, said : “ We may assume that rainwater may make the smooth sloping floor somewhat more slippery than if the floor were dry. None the less, it does not appear that the floor, even when wet, was dangerous.”

If the condition of the lavatory, as shown by the evidence in the instant case, was considered to be such as to justify a recovery herein, the burden of mainteiiance would be so great that respondent would become an insurer of those using like lavatories in State Parks when the floors were wet.

In Carlsom vs. United States, 90 F. Supp. 159 at 160, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court stated : “The court is of the opinion that, although plaintiff has sufficiently proved that the floor was wet and somewhat slippery, she has failed to show eithei negligence on the part of the defendant or lack of contributory negligence 011 her own part. The owners or operators of buildings where the public is in- , vited to come on business are not insurers against all forms of accidents that may happen to any who come. ‘If what was shown in this case was sufficient to permit recovery, it would require store owners to have a mopper stationed at the doors on rainy days for the sole purpose of mopping up after evey customer entering or leaving the premises. Every store owner would be re[*35]quired to be an insurer against such accidents to public invitees who came in on rainy days with wet shoes.’ Sears Roebuck 6 Co. vs. Johnson, 10 Cir., 91 F. 2 ( d ) 332, 339.”

It is fundamental that respondent is not an insurer of the safety of the patrons of the park, and, at the most, can only be held to that degree of care, which a reasonably prudent individual or organization would use in constructing and maintaining a like structure in a like location, under the same and similar circumstances. It is likewise fundamental that the burden of proof is upon claimant to establish negligence on the part of respondent, as well as her freedom from contributory negligence, before recovery can be had. In our judgment, claimant has not borne this burden of proof.

It is clear from the evidence, and particularly from claimant’s own testimony, that the very condition complained of was as apparent to claimant, as it would have been to any agents or servants of respondent had they been present. She, therefore, should be held to as high a degree of care for her own safety, as would be required of respondent in its conduct toward her. She should also be held to have assumed whatever risks were involved in going upon the wet floor, which were within themselves an incident to such act. There was no hidden danger. She was completely cognizant of the condition of the floor. The case, it seems to us, does not present a. different situation in this regard than do those cases wherein a slippery condition on the floor of a building has been brought about by rainfall. The law of Illinois is well settled in those cases wherein the’person injured had as much knowledge of the condition as the owner of the store or building.

In the case of Murray vs. Bedell Compawy of Chicago, 256 Ill. App. 247, an invitee slipped in the lobby of [*36] the store, and sustained injuries as a. result of her fall.

There was mud a.nd water on the floor, which created a slippery condition. In reversing the judgment for the plaintiff in the trial court, and entering judgment in favor of the defendant, the Appelhte Court stated at pages 249, 250 and 251: “From the testimony of the plaintiff it is apparent that the danger, if any, was clearly evident to her, as well as the defendants, and that she was aware of the condition and of the possibility of sustaining a fall before she undertook to pass over and along the floor space of the vestibule.

The condition, described by the witnesses is one that is not only not unusual, but is customarily ta be found on such days as described in the testimony, in vestibules of this character and the sidewalks and the premises surrounding entrances to public places. * * * * In the case at bar the plaintiff was as well apprised of the condition existing in the vestibule as the defendant, and should be held to as high a degree of care for her own safety as would be required of the defendant.”

The court, in arriving at its decision, quoted at length in its opinioiz from a similar case, Kresge Co. vs.

Fader, 116 Ohio St. 718: “ ‘It is a fact known to all that many stores in all branches of trade have an inside door or passageway into the store, usually in the middle of the front.

On each side of this passageway is a display window. The passage then extends back ten or twelve feet or more to the entrance dooir to the store.

This passage usually has a slight slope from the door to the sidewalk, at which line there is no door. This slope is to carry away the rain that may blow into the passageway. The passageway is in fact practically a part of the sidewalk, but at the same time it is within the front line o’f the store, and under control of the store. Would anyone contend thati if a person walked into such passageway when it was raining, and there slipped and fell, he could recover damages because there was moisture on the floor of the passageway? Manifestly not. Everybody knows that, when people are entering any building when it is raining, they will carry some moisture on their feet, which will render the floor near the door on the inside damp to some extent,. and every on8 knows that a damp floor is likely to be a little more slippery than a dry floor.

I * * *

Owners or lessees of stores, office buildings, banks, hotels, theaters, or other buildings where the public is invited to come on business or pleasure, are not insurers against all forms of accidents that may happen to any who come.’ See also Dudley vs. Abraham, 107 N.Y.S. 97.”

[*37] M u way T S . Bedell Co., szhp3r‘q has been followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, in Bfzinet vs. S. S. Kresge Co., 115 F. 2 ( d ) 713, a similar case wherein the court arrived at a like result. In Carlsoit vs. United States, 90 F. Supp. 159, the court stated at page 160: “Plaintiff herself testified that it had been raiiiing all day, and that the sidewalks and streets were wet With those facts in her possession, she was certainly apprised, or should have been, of the likelihood of the floor inside the Post Office being wet, and of the possibility of sustaining a fall as a result thereof. The case at bar comes squarely within the purview of the facts and the law as announced in Murray vs Bedell C o of Chicago, 256 I11 App 247.”

The court’s decision in Murray vs. Bedell Co., supra, is further followed in Clark vs. Carson Pirie Scott d? Co., 340 Ill. App. 260.

Prcfessor William L. Prosser in his handbook, P r o s s e r O IL To?-ts, at page 384, recognizes the rule that “One who enters upon the premises of another, even as a business visitor, assumes the danger of all known or obvious conditions, which he finds there ”.

The court in Dargie vs. East Elid Bolders Club, 346 111. App. 480 at 490, recognizes the same rule: “An ‘invitee aswines all normal, obvious or ordinary risks attendant 011 the use of the premises ’ (65 C J S Neg , Sec 50, pp 542, 543 ) ” In Mack IS. l/Tlomagz’s Club of Aurora, 303 Ill. App. 217, a case involving R woman, who slipped upon a maxcd floor, the Appellate Court, in reversing a trial court juclgment, stated at page 220: “ . Whatever risks were involved with her use of the floor were obvious ones and such as were incident to each of her former visits to the club room, and common to wcry other member of the club Under such circumstances, she must be held to have assumed any risks involved in l i u walking upon the floor, which wege within themselves an incident to such act There appears to have been no hidden danger ” Said case has been followed by this Court in A I Z H U cari”aito vs. State of Illinois, 18 C.C.R. 30.

[*38] Then, too, in addition to the above, there has been no showing that respondent knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the floor mas slippery at the time of the accident in question. The burden of showing such knowledge is upon claimant.

She has failed to offer testimony establishing either actual or constructive notice of the alleged unsafe condition.

We, therefore, hold that claimant is not entitled to recover for the above reasons, and will not extend the opinion further by considering the other questions raised by respondent, or the question of damages. The claim is denied.