LAKISHA WILLIAMS, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged negligence after slipping on a wet floor at Northern Illinois University. The court denied the claim because there was no evidence the State had notice of the dangerous condition.
Cases cited: Carlson v. Board of Regents, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 173 (1994); Langhary v. State of Illinois, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 187 (2000); Simpson v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 76 (1985); Patrick Powell v. State of Illinois, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 117 (1996); Hardeman v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 292, 295 (1995); Berger v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 121, 124 (1988)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Negligence-Elements- Claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent breached its duty of reasonable care, and that the injury was proximately caused by that breach.
- Notice- Claimant has the burden of proving that Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy the condition effectively and efficiently.
- Negligence-Slip and fall on wet floor-No notice-denied- Respondent precluded from liability as there was no evidence that Respondent was notified or should have been aware of the wet floor that allegedly caused Claimant’s injuries. The State is not an insurer of Claimant’s safety and cannot be expected to remove all risk of accidents which may occur on its property or within its facilities.
- OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before this Court upon a recommendation from the assigned
commissioner regarding the complaint of LAKISHA WILLIAMS, Claimant, against STATE OF
ILLINOIS, Northern Illinois University, Respondent.
Claimant's complaint alleges
Respondent's negligence, causing the claimant to suffer personal injuries from a slip and
fall incident that occurred on March 28, 2000, on an allegedly wet floor in the Stevenson
South Building at Northern Illinois University.
Claimant was represented by counsel in this
matter and a hearing was held on October 26, 2007, and January 11, 2008.
I. Factual Findings
Claimant, Lakisha Williams testified that on March of 2000, she was a student at
Northern Illinois University (NIU) living in a private dorm in University Plaza.
On March
[*140] 28, 2000, she was visiting her friend EW who was student living in the Stevenson South
Building.
She had arrived around 6:00 p.m. to participate in a study group that broke up at
around 11:00 p.m./11:30 p.m.
After the study group broke up, she went to her friend's
room to get her things, and then she and EW took the elevator to the main floor with the
intention of going to Claimant's room.
Upon getting off the elevator, Claimant turned to the
left, walked about 20 feet and slipped, striking her face on the wall, falling backwards
striking her head on the floor.
Claimant testified that she did not see any water before she
fell, but that once she was on the floor, Claimant felt water on the floor and on her hands as
she attempted to get up.
Claimant also testified that when she came out of the elevator, she
did not see any "wet floor" signs.
After the accident, paramedics transported her to
Kishwaukee Community Hospital where she was treated for a laceration in her forehead,
and put in a neck brace due to pain in her neck.
After the accident she was unable to
attend classes for two weeks, and was unable to work as a waitress due to her injuries.
Claimant claims to have lost two months from work and approximately $2,800 in wages.
After the accident she developed vertigo, headaches, neck and back pain lasting six to eight
weeks.
The neck pain lasted for three or four months.
Claimant also submitted an affidavit from Ms. William's friend EW into evidence as
part of the Departmental report.
The affidavit of EW attests that she "saw [Claimant] slip
on the wet floor and hit her face against the wall, and then fall to the floor."
Timothy Trottier, at 12 year employee of Northern Illinois University testified on
behalf of Respondent.
In March 2000, he was an Assistant Area Coordinator for the
Stevenson Complex.
Under his supervision was one graduate student hall director plus ten
(10) CA's on each floor and a desk staff of twenty (20) supervisors and forty (40) to fifty [*141]
(50) desk workers.
Mr. Trottier testified that the area by the elevators is a "prime public
area" and that the front desk is right on the way out just fifty (50) to seventy (70) feet from
the elevators.
Because of the late night cafeteria located in this building, which closes at
11:00 p.m., over eighty (80) to one hundred (100) students could pass through the area
where the accident occurred from ten o'clock to midnight.
Mr. Trottier testified that no
one had reported any spills prior to the fall.
After the accident, he directed his CA's to
inspect the area and determine whether there was any bodily fluid on the floor.
The CA's
reported to him that they did not see any water or anything that could have caused
Claimant to fall in the subject location.
Bryan Hart, a 28 year employee of Northern Illinois University, who at the time of
the trial was the Assistant Superintendent of building services, also testified on behalf of
Respondent.
Mr. Hart testified that in March 2000, based on the protocol that existed, if
students or guests had complained of water or liquid spills in the lobby by the elevator in
Stevenson South, it would have been promptly addressed.
He further testified that at no
time prior to Claimant's accident did the building services department receive any
complaint of a wet floor, or spill in the subject location, and if there was a spill or wet floor
by the elevator prior to the accident, the building staff was not aware of it.
II. Legal Analysis
The State owes a duty to persons legitimately on its property to use reasonable care
in maintaining its premises.
Catherine Carlson v. Board of Regents of the Regency University
System, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171, 174 (1994).
However, to establish negligence, the Claimant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent breached its duty of
reasonable care, and that the injury was proximately caused by the breach.
Evelyn Wojdla
[*142] v. City of Park Ridge, 148 Ill 2nd 348, 421 (1992).
In order to recover, Claimant also has the
burden of proving that Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous
condition, but failed to remedy the condition effectively and efficiently.
Carlson v. Board of
Regents, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 173 (1994).
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing in this matter, this Court determines
that the Respondent is precluded from liability in that there was no evidence presented at
the hearing indicating that that Respondent was notified or should have been aware of the
condition that allegedly caused Claimant's injuries.
It has been well-settled that, "the State
is not an insurer of Claimant's safety."
Langhary v. State of Illinois, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 187 (2000)
(quoting Simpson v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 76 (1985)).
As the State is not an insurer, it cannot
be expected to remove all risk of accidents which may occur from all areas of its property
or facilities.
Patrick Powell v. State of Illinois, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 117 (1996).
Rather the State
owes a duty of reasonable care in maintaining its premises.
Hardeman v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl.
292, 295 (1995)(citing Berger v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl.
121, 124 (1988)).
The evidence presented at the hearing is devoid of any indication that
the Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the water on the floor which is the
alleged dangerous or defective condition that caused the Claimant's injuries.
Claimant
therefore is unable to establish a key element required to recover damages.
As such,
Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent is
liable for her injuries, and this matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice.