Gwendolyn N. Holmes v. State of Illinois

OPINION

JANN, J.

This matter comes to be heard on the claim of Gwendolyn N. Holmes for personal injuries sustained as a result of the alleged negligence of the Respondent, State of Illinois. The claim arises out of a trip and fall accident at an entrance to Stevenson South Tower dormitory on the Northern Illinois University campus.

The Claimant testified that on September 11, 1994 while she was a student at Northern Illinois University (NIU), she participated in a fire drill, conducted by University personnel for all residents of the dormitory. On the date in question at approximately 9:00 p.m., the fire alarm sounded. Claimant was getting ready for bed and had already removed her contacts. Claimant did not put her eyeglasses on before exiting her room. When the fire drill was over, Claimant and the rest of the students were allowed to return to the dormitory. Claimant and approximately 200 other students re-entered the South tower at its southwest entrance. Claimant testified she was in the middle of a crowd of students re-entering the dormitory and as she drew near the entrance, she tripped. She fell forward and crashed through a large window that was to the right of the door. She sustained severe lacerations resulting in permanent scarring and alleges emotional trauma.

The Court heard testimony from Jeffrey Daurer who, at the time of the accident, was a hall director at Stevenson South dormitory. He and his staff were responsible for creating a “welcoming and just community” for the student residents. Four senior staff members and some twenty resident assistants were supervised by Mr. Daurer. Daurer testified at length with respect to the great attention to details undertaken by the University to conduct safe and satisfactory fire drills. The fire drill in question completely complied with NIU’s procedures on the date of Claimant’s injury.

It is uncontested that Claimant tripped while re-entering the dormitory and she clearly sustained painful injuries as a result of that fall. Medical bills and records were stipulated as admitted prior to trial.

Claimant gave personal testimony at hearing. She presented no occurrence witnesses. No expert testimony was offered. Photographs of the premises and Claimant were admitted into evidence.

Issues

Claimant alleges Respondent negligently maintained its premises and/or failed to properly supervise ingress by students following the fire drill. The alleged negligence purportedly caused Claimant’s injury. Claimant has asserted inadequate lighting of the subject door and dormitory entrance, existence and creation of a hazardous condition arising from use of a black rubber doorstop after nightfall, and lack of a required “safety bar” on the window’s interior where Claimant was injured.

Claimant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that Respondent breached its duty of reasonable care owed to Claimant, that the breach proximately caused Claimant’s injury, and that Respondent had actual or constructive notice of a defect or hazardous condition. It is well settled that [*197] Respondent is not an insurer of the safety of users of its premises. Burns v. State (2001) 53 Ill.Ct.Cl. 73 at 78, 80.

Claimant has also argued that the alleged defects were particularly dangerous to a person with visual impairment who exited without her corrective lenses or glasses. The Court has addressed the standard of proof a Claimant must meet to establish a special duty owed by Respondent in Chestnut v. State (2000) 53 Ill.Ct.Cl. 46, citing Burdine v. Village of Glendale Heights (1990), 139 Ill.App.2d 501, 565 N.E. 2d 654.

Analysis

Claimant’s testimony and exhibits do not establish that she was owed a special duty by Respondent due to visual impairment. Claimant appeared and testified at hearing without corrective eyewear and testified her vision was worse on the date of hearing than on the date of her injury. Claimant demonstrated her ability to see objects 8-10 feet from her position at hearing.

Claimant’s allegations of insufficient lighting are not supported. There is no testimony that the lights were “burned out” or in disrepair when Claimant fell.

Respondent’s witnesses provided testimony to establish Respondent’s routine maintenance and repair of lighting on the premises and compliance with applicable codes and standards.

Claimant presented no witnesses or authority to rebut Respondent’s evidence of due care. No reports of similar incidents or complaints are of record. Claimant made no direct statement to indicate that her inability to see cause her fall in her hearing testimony.

Claimant’s photographs of the door and black doorstop were admitted at hearing. Claimant testified she did not trip on the door frame or steps. She stated she determined the doorstop caused her fall only after her injury. Claimant’s recollection of the position of the door and her actions just before her fall was diminished by the passage of time between the incident and hearing.

Claimant’s exhibits do not illustrate the existence of an obvious hazard presented by the doorstop to a person exercising reasonable care for her own safety. Respondent presented testimony that the doorstops were used to keep the self-closing security doors from closing or being pushed by wind gusts during fire drills. There is no evidence to indicate Respondent’s use of black doorstops was contrary to reasonable and common practices at the time.

Claimant has presented no testimony or evidence to support a finding regarding the alleged absence of a “safety bar” inside the window pane Claimant struck and broke when she fell.

Claimant’s arguments regarding lack of supervision by Respondent for the safe ingress of students to their residence after a fire drill is without proof or relevance. Claimant stated she was in no way interfered with or impeded by several hundred fellow students as she attempted to enter the dormitory. Claimant also stated she was in “the middle” of the group of students and that many had entered without incident prior to Claimant’s accident.

No evidence was presented to suggest the alleged lack of written policy for supervision of ingress by Respondent’s employees played any part in Claimant’s injury.

[*198] There is also no evidence to suggest the lack of such a written policy violated University regulations or applicable legal standards.

The obvious purpose of conducting a fire drill is to practice orderly, safe evacuation of a premises. The intent of such drills is to familiarize occupants of a premises with location of exits and established safety procedures in the event a real emergency should arise.

The evidence at hearing indicated that Respondent has instituted measures intended to apprise all residents of safety procedures. There is also testimony that Respondent provided a student handbook detailing the necessity to inform resident advisors (student employees living on each dormitory floor) if one was in need of special assistance. Claimant did not recall receiving a student handbook and did not attend a “mandatory” floor meeting which Respondent’s witness testified were held prior to the fire drill. The meetings were held to discuss fire drill procedures and apprise student advisors of residents with special needs.

While the parties have debated whether Claimant was personally apprised of the fire drill procedures, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Respondent conducted the subject fire drill accordingly to applicable policy and procedures.

Findings

Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof to prevail on allegations of negligence.

This claim is hereby denied.