Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Earlene Osman v. State of Illinois

38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 203 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1986-03-11 No. 83-CC-1306
Disposition: (No. 83-CC-1306-Claim denied.) Agency: Anna Mental Health Center
Cite as: Earlene Osman v. State of Illinois, 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 203 (1986)
General Court of Claims 38 denied 1980s Earlene Osman v. State of Illinois 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 203 1986-03-11 (No. 83-CC-1306-Claim denied.) /opinions/v38-p0285-1/

EARLENE OSMAN, Claimant, 0. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for broken eyeglasses after falling on a sidewalk at the Anna Mental Health Center. The court denied the claim, finding that claimant failed to prove proximate cause and negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Claim type: Property Damage

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. N EIL F. H ARTIGAN, Attorney General (ALISON P. BRESLAUER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
  2. NEGLIGENcE-fall on step-no negligence b y State-claim denied. Property damage claim for broken eyeglasses which occurred when Claimant stubbed her toe on step and fell was denied, as Claimant failed to prove that State was negligent.

This cause comes on for hearing upon the claim made by Earlene Osman for broken eyeglasses. Claimant broke her eyeglasses as a result of a fall at the Anna Mental Health Center.

The record in this case reveals that the Claimant was a visitor at the Respondent’s facility, and was walking on the sidewalk at the time of the fall. It is undisputed that the Claimant stubbed her toe on the bottom step, thereby falling toward the street. It is further undisputed that there were no cracks or broken areas on the sidewalk.

Claimant bases the claim on the fact that it was dark in the area of the steps. The record is not disputed that there were lights in the area, however, it was unclear whether they were on at the time of the fall.

After considering all of the evidence, we believe that the Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof on the issue of proximate cause. We also believe that Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the [*204] evidence that Respondent was negligent. Therefore, we find for the Respondent and deny this claim.

Official volume 38 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1986 – July 1, 1985–June 30, 1986)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.