Moto Heating v. State of Illinois

This cause comes before the Court after hearing of all evidence before a Commissioner, and the Court being fully advised and having reviewed the Commissioner’s recommendation the Court finds:

1. Claimant, Mot0 Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Corporation (“Moto”) is a duly organized Illinois corporation having its principal place of business at 4715 North Damen Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60625.

2. The Board of Governors of State Colleges and [*35] Universities (“Univ”) is a body politic and corporate of the State of Illinois, created and established under the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities Revenue Bond Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 144, par. 1001 et se9.

3. Ronald Williams is, and at all times relevant to Claimant’s action was, president of Northeastern Illinois University; William H. Lienemann is, and at a11 times relevant to Claimant’s action was, vice president for administrative affairs at Northeastern Illinois University; Ray R. Roth was at all times relevant to Claimant’s action director of purchases at Northeastern Illinois University; and Gary Bryan is, and at all times relevant to Claimant’s action was, campus planning coordinator at Northeastern Illinois University. All of said individuals are employees of the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities and were at all times pertinent to Claimant’s action acting or failing to act within the scope of their employment and not personally.

4. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction of Claimant’s tort claims against Respondent Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, based upon the acts or omissions of Respondent’s employees Ronald Williams, William. H. Lienemann, Ray Roth and Gary Bryan (collectively “employees”) as alleged herein.

5 . Section 3 of An Act to create Northeastern Illinois University places the statutory duty upon the said Board of Governors to make rules, regulations, and by-laws for the good government and management of the University, to employ all necessary employees and proscribe their duties. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 144, par. 1153.

6. Mot0 performed work for Northeastern Illinois University, and did perform work in a workmanlike manner.

[*36] 7. Mot0 specifically asked Gary Bryan how Mot0 would be protected if it were to agree to perform the work referred to.

8. Gary Bryan informed Mot0 that the prime contractor selected would be required to furnish a final waiver of lien from Mot0 before payment would be made to the prime contractor.

9. Triple A Moving and Storage, Inc., was eventually awarded the prime contract on the project in question.

10. Triple A submitted an original invoice received from Mot0 for work performed by Mot0 totaling $7,000.00 but did not submit a final waiver of lien executed.

11. A State warrant was issued to Triple A on or about February 11, 1980, in the amount of $17,340.00.

12. The University employees did not further notify Mot0 it was issuing said warrant prior to issuance and delivery.

13. The University did not require Triple A to have a bond to protect against nonperformance of Triple A’s duties.

14. Triple A Moving and Storage has not paid Mot0 the $7,000.00 or any part thereof.

15. Univ had not paid Mot0 and has refused to pay Mot0 for said work.

It is hereby ordered that the Court finds in favor of the Claimant and awards the sum of seven thousand ($7,000.00)and no/100 dollars as damages.

[*37] ( N 0. 81-CC-1184-Clain~;iu t awardcd $40,000.00.)

J AN E DOE, Claimant, u. T HE S TATE O F I LLINOIS,

Respondent.

Opiniou filed August ,5,1986.

Order oti moiiott for recon.sirlerotion filed May 10, 1988

REDINA FRIEDMAN, for Claimant.

NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (ROBERT J. SKLAMBERG, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

S T i P u L A T i o N s - c l u i i n a n t ussaulted in university dormitory- award gruttfed. Based on a joint stipulation of the parties, an award was granted to the Claimant for the injuries she sustained when she was assaulted and raped on two different occasions in her dormitory room at a university operated by the State of Illinois.

I w m E s T - u w a r d based on sti~iilation-~ost-judgmeriti n t e rest denied. Where an award was granted based on a stipulation of the parties, but the payment had to await the appropriation of funds by the legislature, the Claimant’s motion for post-judgment interest based on section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure was denied, since the Court of Claims has consistently held that the State is not liable for interest in the absence of an express statutory provision, and section 2-1303 does not expressly make the State of Illinois liable for post-judgment interest.

OPINION

MONTANA, C.J.

This matter is before the Court upon the joint stipulation of the parties hereto. This claim sounds in tort and is brought pursuant to section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 439.8(d).

Claimant was a student at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, and resided at Grant Towers South residence hall, a dormitory owned, operated and maintained by Respondent. On two separate occasions, on the evenings of January 13,1980, and March 23, 1980, Claimant suffered personal injuries when she was attacked, assaulted, battered and raped in [*38] her dormitory room by an unknown assailant or assailants.

We note that the parties hereto have agreed to a settlement of this claim and that Respondent agrees to the entry of an award in favor of Claimant in the amount of forty thousand dollars and no/cents ($40,000.00).

Based on the foregoing, Claimant, Jane Doe, is hereby awarded the sum of forty th0usan.d dollars and no/cents ($40,000.00),in full and final satisfaction of this claim.

It is further ordered that the record in this matter be sealed and the Claimant be referred to as Jane Doe when this decision is reported in the Court of Claims Reports.

ORDER O N MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

M O N T ANA , C.J

This cause comes on to be heard on the Claimant’s motion for reconsideration, due notice having been given, and the Court being advised.

On August 5,1986, this Court approved a settlement reached by the parties to this claim and entered an award in the amount of $40,000.00. Immediate payment of said award was not authorized by section 24 of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 439.24). The award was presented to the legislature for appropriation of funds to pay the award during the fall session of 1986. Funds were appropriated and payment was vouchered on February 6, 1987. In her motion, Claimant stated she received the warrant on February 18, 1987. Over three months later Claimant filed the motion at bar seeking interest on the judgment. Claimant cited section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of her motion. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-1303.

[*39] The Court has consistently followed the rule that the State is not liable for interest in the absence of a statute expressly subjecting it to such liability. The statute cited by the Claimant does not expressly make the State of Illinois liable for post-judgment interest. See Gendel 0.State (1982), 38 Ill. Ct. C1. 76, and cases cited therein.

It is hereby ordered. that Claimant’s motion for reconsideration be, and hereby is, denied.

( No . 81-CC-1365-Claim denied.)

DEBORAH LONG, Claimant, 0.THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Respondent.

Opinion filed March 27,1986.

Order on denial of rehearing filed October 20,1987.

GOLDENHERSH & GOLDENHERSH, for Claimant.

NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (JAMES C. MAJORS, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

~ ~ ’ Sto invitee. A visitor to a State correctional

N E G L I G E N C E - - S ~ ~duty center is an invitee, and the State owes such visitors the duty to use reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe, and this duty includes the duty to use reasonable care to discover any defects or dangerous conditions existing on the premises.

SAME-invitee need not prove State had actual knowledge of dangerous condition on premises. In an action arising from injuries sustained by an invitee on State premises, the invitee need not prove that the State had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition which caused the invitee’s injury, but the invitee must prove that the State, by using reasonable care, could have discovered the condition.

SAME-visitor to correctional center injured when bench gave waybolts malicioitsly removed-claim denied. Where a visitor at a State correctional center suffered back injuries when a bench she was attempting [*40] to sit on gave way, her claim for the injuries based on the allegation that the State negligently failed to maintain the bench was denied, since the Claimant failed to prove the State was liable in view of the facts that the only reasonable explanation for the accident was that someone intentionally removed the bolts securing the bench, the bolts could not be found after the accident, and there was no evidence as to how long the condition had existed.

SAME-res ipsa loquitur-essentia/ elements In order to recover under a theory of res ipsa loquitur, a Claimant must prove that she was injured in an occurrence that would not have happened in the absence of negligence, the injury was caused by an instrumentality or agency under the State’s control, and the circumstances indicated that the injury was not due to any voluntary act or negligence on the part of the Claimant.

SAME-bench at correctional center gave way- visitor injuredelements of res ipsa loquitur not established-claim denied. A visitor to a correctional center who was injured when a bench she was attempting to sit on gave way failed to establish the essential elements of her claim based on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, since the evidence indicated that the bench gave way because someone maliciously removed the bolts securing it to the table, and therefore she failed to prove that the accident would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the State.

P R I S O N E R S A N D INMATES-State not liable for intentional torts of inmates.

OPINION

PATCHETT, J.

This claim arises from an accident which occurred on May 27, 1979, at the Illinois State Minimum Security Correctional Center near Vienna, Illinois. Paul Long, husband of the Claimant, Deborah Long, was a resident at the Center at the time of the accident. On May 27th, Claimant, while visiting her husband, fell on her low back when a bench on which she was sitting collapsed. Claimant alleges the injuries she suffered were caused by the negligence of agents of the State of Illinois.

Claimant met her husband for a regular visit on the day in question. After having lunch and visiting inside, Claimant and her husband went to the visitors’ patio. On the patio were several round tables with benches attached by metal legs and supports. As the Claimant sat [*41] on one of the benches, the bench support fell away from the table and collapsed, thereby causing Claimant to fall backwards onto the concrete patio surface. Claimant suffered a sprain of her right forearm, and a chip-type fracture of the fifth lumbar vertebra. She was hospitalized from May 27 to June 3, 1979, under the care of Dr. Der1 Warren, a general practitioner in Eldorado, Illinois. She was treated conservatively and released from Dr. Warren’s care at the time of her hospital discharge.

An examination of the table and bench after the accident revealed that two nuts, bolts, and washers holding the leg to the table were missing. These items could not be found. It was impossible to determine during the investigation whether they had been removed by someone or had simply worked loose.

The patio area and the tables and benches were generally maintained by maintenance employees of the State, or by Correctional Center inmates under the supervision of the State maintenance employees. No one had reported any maintenance or repair problems with the tables or benches prior to the accident. Phillip Huff, a security officer for the Illinois Department of Corrections, investigated the accident and testified that in his observation the bolts holding the bench to the table could not work loose except over an extended period of time.

As a visitor to the Correctional Center, Claimant’s legal status on the State’s premises was that of an invitee. (Brown v . State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. C1. 696; Levy v . State (1958), 22 Ill. Ct. C1. 694.) The State therefore owed to the Claimant the duty to use reasonable care and caution in keeping the premises reasonably safe for use by the Claimant, including the duty to exercise reasonable care to discover defects or dangerous conditions existing [*42] upon the premises. (Chapman v. Foggy (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 552, 375 N.E.2d 865.) It is not necessary to prove the State had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, but the Claimant must prove that the State, by exercising reasonable care, could have discovered the dangerous condition.

Major Huff testified that it would not be possible to notice the missing bolts and nuts without actually inspecting under the bench or the table. There was no regular maintenance schedule. The tables were repaired only if someone reported maintenance was needed. The inmates cleaned the tables and benches as necessary. No evidence was presented by either party as to when the tables and benches in question were last cleaned before the accident, or when the bench was last used.

We believe that it is unlikely that the two bolts and nuts simply worked loose over time, particularly in light of the fact that they could not be found after the accident. If the bench had been loose long enough to allow the bolts and nuts to be lost, it would have fallen long before this Claimant sat upon it. It is more reasonable to conclude that the bolts and nuts were removed intentionally by someone in the patio area prior to the Claimant sitting on the bench. There was no evidence to show how long the condition had existed prior to its discovery on May 27th. In fact, there was no evidence as to how long the patio area had been open to visitors on May 27th before this accident occurred. For all the foregoing reasons, we find that the Claimant has failed to prove the State liable under this theory of negligence.

Claimant also argued that the State was liable under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. This theory allows an inference of negligence to be drawn from circumstantial [*43] evidence. To recover under res ipsa loquitur, the Claimant must prove that she was injured in an occurrence that would not have occurred in .the absence of negligence, by an instrumentality or agency under the management or control of the State, and under circumstances indicating the injury was not due to any voluntary act or neglect on the part of the Claimant. (Lynch v. Precision Machine Shop, Ltd. (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 266, 443 N.E.2d 569; Nurse v . State (1982), 35 Ill. Ct. C1. 759.) We think that the Claimant has failed to prove that this occurrence would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the Respondent. The accident would have occurred, and probably did occur, as a result of malicious removal of the bolts and nuts from the bench. The State is not liable for intentional torts committed by its inmates. Holda v . Kane County (1980), 88 Ill. App. 3d

522,410 N.E.2d 552. I

I

We therefore find for the Respondent. I

I

ORDER ON DENIAL OF REHEARING

I

PATCHETT, J. ~

This cause comes on for hearing upon the motion for rehearing filed herein by Claimant; and the Court, ,

I

having considered the motion and the Respondent’s response to said motion, finds as follows:

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing be and hereby is denied.