Shirley Young v. Chicago State University

OPINION

STORINO, J

Claimant Shirley Young brings this claim in tort for a fractured ankle and other injuries suffered after falling down the stairway in her auditorium-style classroom at Chicago State University on June 3, 1999.

Claimant

asserts that her fall and related injuries occurred because Respondents, State of Illinois and Chicago State University, breached their duty to her by failing to take proper measures in keeping the stairway safe and protecting her from harm.

Claimant seeks $100,000 in damages, of which $22,000 are for medical expenses already incurred.

This claim was heard before a Commissioner on March 11, 2009.

Factual Background

Claimant testified at the hearing that on June 3, 1999, she was a registered Chicago State University student attending class in lecture hall #102, Harold Washington Hall.

This was her ninth or tenth class of the semester.

Hall #102 was an auditorium-style classroom: there were stairs next to the walls on the far right and far left of the room, with rows of seating in the middle.

Handrails were affixed to both walls.

Facing the professor in the front of the room, Claimant was sitting on the right side of the room.

She then went down to the front of the room and picked up an assignment.

She also got one for a man with a neck-brace in one of the rows behind her, so he would not have to walk down the stairs.

She went up the stairs, handed him his assignment, and then turned around to walk down the stairs to her seat when she slipped and tumbled down the stairs, twisting and fracturing her right ankle.

Subsequently, University Police were dispatched and Claimant was taken to a hospital by ambulance.

Claimant did not recall where her feet were when she started tumbling, remembering only that she somehow slipped and fell.

Claimant did recall, however, that she was not holding the handrail when she fell.

She testified that in the nine or ten prior classes she had traveled up and down the stairs in that room and never filed any complaints regarding the stairs because, “she did not know there was a problem.”

Also, Claimant, on crossexamination, agreed that she did not see any shadows on the steps when she fell.

Claimant argues that she fell because Respondent negligently maintained the stairway.

Specifically, Claimant asserts that the stairway constituted a dangerous condition because it was hard to distinguish the steps: they were all one color and material, inconsistent in depth, and were covered by shadows because the only light source was far away.

This assessment of the stairway is supported by the testimony of Mitchell Masalski, a retired Chicago Police Officer who observed the hall #102 on August 14, 2002.

Claimant also offered into evidence a video that Masalski made of the lecture hall in question.

Claimant states that Respondent had notice of the dangerous nature of the stairway because it was in the same condition since 1971.

Claimant further notes that in the same building there is a stairway outside the classroom near the entry/exit to the building.

Claimant notes that even though that stairway is of the same construction era as the stairway in question it has a gritty red reflective tape on the edges.

[*184] In its Post-Trial Brief, filed May 11, 2009, Respondent asserts that Claimant has failed to prove Respondent negligent in any way because the evidence presented at trial, specifically witness testimony and the video-tape, indicates that there was nothing unusual about the stairs.

Further, Respondent asserts that it cannot be charged with actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition regarding the stairs because, in addition to the unremarkable nature of the stairs, Claimant was the first of approximately thousands of users in 20 years to get injured on them.1

Respondent concludes that Claimant’s own actions were the proximate cause of her injuries because, among other reasons, she carelessly and negligently failed to exercise necessary caution when using the stairs.

Analysis

To state a cause of action sounding in negligence, a claimant must assert facts establishing the following: the existence of a duty that respondent owned him; the respondent breached that duty; and that as a proximate result of the breach Claimant suffered damages.

Estate of Johnson by Johnson v. Condell Memorial Hosp., 119 Ill.2d 496 (1988).

A person owes a duty of ordinary care to guard against injuries to others that may result as a reasonable, probable and foreseeable consequence of negligent conduct.

Karas v. Strevell, 369 Ill.App.3d 884, 889 (2nd Dist.2006).

However the State is not an insurer of the safety of all persons visiting its facilities.

See Bahl v. State, 49 Ill.Ct.Cl. 120 (1997).

Thus, Claimant must also establish that the State had either actual or constructive notice of an alleged defect or dangerous condition before recovery is allowed.

Dunbar v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 175 (1992).

Here, Claimant offers the following possible negligent conduct: the steps were all one color and material, rendering them hard to distinguish; the steps had inconsistent depths; the steps were covered by shadows because the only light source was far away.

Claimant offers the video of the stairs in question in an attempt to support these assertions.

Upon reviewing the tape, nothing about the stairs’ condition supports a finding that they constituted a dangerous or defective condition.

All stairs usually consist of steps that are the same color.

And to the extent that there is any variation in the depth of the stairs, no expert testimony was offered to support that such coloring or depth variation constituted a dangerous condition, or that the variation is significant enough for us to find that it constitutes an obvious dangerous condition.

Claimant’s own testimony indicates that she did not find anything wrong with the condition of the stairs until she fell on them.

She had nine or ten previous classes in that room, walked up and down the stairs and never felt the need to report anything because “she did not know there was a problem.”

More importantly, Claimant does not establish how the alleged negligent conduct was the proximate cause of her damages.

She testified that she does not know how she fell down the stairs.

The Court notes that a week after the March 11, 2009 hearing in this case, Claimant submitted a letter to the Commissioner disclosing that Claimant has now

discovered possible impeachment evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses on the issue of notice because he has learned of two previous falls at Chicago State

University. Remarkably, counsel for the Claimant herein is representing an individual in a Worker’s Compensation Claim before the Illinois Industrial

Commission, who fell at Chicago State University in 2007. The incident giving rise to Claimant’s claim occurred June 3, 1999, and the Complaint was filed May

7, 2001. Claimant had ample time to investigate such issues prior to the presentation of evidence in this case. Further, Claimant never requested that the proofs in

this case be re-opened to present additional evidence. Accordingly, we do not consider any allegations made in Claimant’s letter.

[*185] Thus, Claimant has not proved that the depth of the stairs or the fact that they were the same color is what caused her to fall.

And as for the shadows, she herself admitted that she did not see any shadows when she fell.

We need not conjecture how Claimant fell since it is the Claimant’s burden to show how she fell and how the Respondent was negligent.

Further, since Claimant has not established what it specifically was about the stairs that caused her to fall, it is irrelevant that the stairway outside the classroom has an additional feature - the gritty red reflective tape on the edges.

Unless we know what caused Claimant to fall, we do not know if the reflective tape would have made a difference.

Claimant has failed to meet her burden in establishing that Respondent was negligent because she has failed to establish how Respondent’s conduct was negligent or how it was responsible for her fall.

Based on the above, we find that Claimant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was negligent.

Accordingly, Claimant’s claim is denied with prejudice.