Michael Ballagio Pinkett v. State of Illinois

OPINION

Claimant Michael Pinkett brings this claim in tort seeking damages for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell on ice on March 10, 2019, while an inmate at East Moline Correctional Center. Claimant argues that Respondent is liable for his injuries because the ice he fell on was unnatural accumulation of ice caused by a cracked and broken sidewalk that Respondent negligently failed to repair. A hearing was held before the Commissioner on October 9, 2024.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Claimant’s Testimony

At the hearing, Claimant Michael Pinkett testified that sometime before 8:10 a.m. on March 10, 2019, he was given a pass to go to the Property Room and pick up an item that had been delivered for him. After exiting his housing unit and crossing the road in front of it, he headed east along the sidewalk leading to the Dietary Building, in which the Property Room was located.

Soon after Claimant got onto the sidewalk, he noticed that there was ice on it. Consequently, he walked slowly and cautiously on the sidewalk. He explained that he also tried not to walk on the grass on either side of the sidewalk because he did not think he was permitted to walk off the sidewalk. As Claimant got closer to the Dietary Building, he lost balance on the ice, slipped, and then ultimately fell to the ground, twisting his ankle.

[*199] Claimant recalled that after falling, he noticed that the portion of the sidewalk he slipped on was “broken-up and collapsed” and “uneven.” Claimant did not offer any evidence aside from his own testimony regarding the condition of the sidewalk. He recalled being aware of the condition of this portion of the sidewalk prior to the day of his accident but could not remember if he reported it to anyone. Claimant alleges that his fall resulted in him suffering a fractured fibula, a tear of the deltoid ligament and other ligaments outside of his ankle, a torn knee meniscus, and a lumbar disc injury with radiculopathy.

B. Testimony of Former Assistant Warden Hamilton, Former Shift Supervisor Troy

Christopherson and Correctional Officer Craig Steinhagen

Robert Eugene Hamilton was the Assistant Warden of Operations at East Moline Correctional Center when the incident in question occurred. Mr. Hamilton testified that during the winter, East Moline Correctional Center required that Shift Commanders inspect all sidewalks before each shift, and prior to high traffic events (like lunchtime) to determine what needs to be salted and shoveled in the winter. However, Hamilton explained that this was not a formal East Moline or IDOC policy. Nor was this informal policy ever reduced to writing.

Tony Christopherson, who was the Shift Supervisor for the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift during the day in question testified that he was not aware of any such policy. He explained that roll call for the 7:00 a.m. shift began at 6:45 a.m. On the day in question, he did not inspect the sidewalks for snow prior to 7:00 a.m. because he was handing out assignments and making sure he had coverage. Nor did he ask any of the Shift Commanders to do it.

Craig Steinhagen, who was the Shift Commander on the morning in question, testified that he was assigned to line movement for Yard 52 (the area where Claimant’s accident occurred). He explained that being assigned to the line movement entailed him ensuring that the inmates moving through his section of the facility were safe and were only walking in the areas they were permitted to walk. Part of his duties included ensuring that areas needing salting were salted.

From when his shift started at 7:00 a.m. to when inmate line movement began at 8:00 a.m., he gathered his equipment, which included getting his radio, keys, spray, and cuffs. A little before 8:00 a.m. he arrived at the Yard 52 “Sergeant Shack” which was close to [*200] where Claimant’s housing unit was. Around that time he noticed the sidewalk was icy, so he and Inmate Huckabee, who was working as a porter, had started salting the sidewalk near the Seargent Shack. Under ten minutes later, Steinhagen could hear Claimant yelling out in pain when he fell on the sidewalk - about 50 yards east of where he and Huckabee were salting.

Steinhagen and Inmate Huckabee then walked over to Claimant. After Claimant told Steinhagen that he was unable to get up, Steinhagen requested medical assistance. Soon after, six correctional officers and two nurses arrived to assist Claimant off the ground and onto a wheelchair. They then transported him to the medical unit. Neither Steinhagen, Inmate Huckabee, or the six correctional officers or two nurses slipped onto the ground while responding to Claimant or transporting him to the medical unit.

Analysis

Negligence and Duty

To state a cause of action sounding in negligence, a claimant must assert facts establishing the following: the existence of a duty that respondent owed him; the respondent breached that duty; and that as a proximate result of the breach the claimant suffered damages. Estate of Johnson by Johnson v. Condell Memorial Hosp., 119 Ill.2d 496 (1988). The State, however, is not an insurer of all accidents on its premises - its duty to its inmates is to provide them with reasonably safe conditions. Pinnick v. State, 50 Ill.Ct.C1. (1999). In cases involving snow and ice, there is no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. White v. State, 38 Ill.Ct.C1. 1, 7 (1984). An individual that slips and falls on snow or ice must prove that there was an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice or that the State was negligent in the removal of the snow or ice. Id. Here, Claimant argues both that Respondent created an unnatural accumulation of ice and that Respondent was negligent in its removal of the ice.

We first address Claimant’s argument about Respondent being negligent in its removal of ice. Respondent was on notice about the condition of the sidewalk when Steinhagen got to the Sergeant Shack shortly before 8 a.m. Within minutes he and Inmate [*201] Huckabee started salting the sidewalk. Clearly, Respondent used reasonable care in addressing the ice on the sidewalk by salting it almost immediately after discovering it.

Nonetheless, Claimant argues that Respondent was negligent for failing to discover the ice prior to when Steinhagen began his 7 a.m. shift. Specifically, Claimant argues Respondent breached its duty because it failed to follow its policy that, in winter, Shift Commanders do an inspection of the sidewalk before their shift to check for snow and ice. This argument fails for two reasons.

First, there was no written or formal policy stating this. The Shift Supervisor for that duty was not even aware such policy existed. Second, even if there was an internal policy, it cannot serve as the basis for finding Respondent was negligent where it imposes a more stringent duty than the duty to provide reasonably safe conditions. As we have stated before, “the State is not required to undertake extraordinary burdensome inspections.” Rivera v. State, 63 Ill.Ct.C1. 218, 226 (2011). That would certainly be the case here because Claimant is arguing that Respondent was negligent because Steinhagen did not walk from roll call at 6:45 a.m. to Yard 52 and inspect and clear the entire sidewalk while also gathering all the equipment he needed before line call at 8:00 a.m. Accordingly, we find that Claimant has failed to establish that it is more likely than not that Respondent was negligent in removing the ice he slipped on.

This leads us to Claimant’s other available theory of negligence: unnatural accumulation. An unnatural accumulation of snow and ice is accumulated by artificial causes or in an unnatural way or by a defendant’s own use of the area concerned and creation of a dangerous condition that has been there long enough to charge the responsible party with notice and knowledge of the dangerous condition. Fitzsimons v. National Tea Co., 29 Ill.App.2d 306, 318, 173 N.E.2d 534 (1961).

Here, Claimant argues that the portion of the sidewalk he slipped on was sunken in and cracked. But Claimant does not explain how the sunken in sidewalk created the unnatural accumulation. Nor does Claimant offer any evidence aside from his own testimony that the section of the sidewalk he fell on was sunken in or cracked. Further, Les Arbuckle, Respondent’s Chief Engineer, testified in his evidentiary deposition that if there had been an issue with the condition of the subject sidewalk, or if anyone had been injured, he would have been notified and would have known of any work done to repair it.

[*202] However, he had no record or memory of being called out to inspect the location in question prior to Claimant’s accident.

Claimant’s own testimony belies that the ice he slipped on was created by an unnatural accumulation. He testified that when he started walking on the sidewalk, it was icy. This would have been around the same location that Steinhagen also noticed the ice in front of the Sergeant Shack, about 50 yards from where the Claimant fell. However, Claimant introduced no evidence, even through his own testimony, that there was any defect in the other portions of the sidewalk that were also icy. If the other portions of the sidewalk were icy, and there was nothing wrong with those portions of the sidewalk, then that would vitiate a finding that ice on the portion of the sidewalk Claimant slipped on was caused by an unnatural accumulation. For these reasons we find that Claimant has failed to establish that Respondent is liable to him for an unnatural accumulation of ice.

Lastly, the record also supports a finding that Claimant did not take reasonable care in looking out for his own safety. Despite Claimant’s characterization of the patch of ice he slipped on as dangerous, Steinhagen and Inmate Huckabee were able to walk to him without incident. The six correctional officers and two nurses who responded also walked along the sidewalk without incident. And, without incident, they were able to help him off the ground, put him in a wheelchair, and walk back over the sidewalk.

The Claimant stated he noticed the ice soon after he got onto the sidewalk and tried to walk cautiously. But the Respondent was not compelling him to get his property at that time. If Claimant felt unstable on the ice no matter how cautiously he tried to walk, he could have elected to turn around and go back to his room.

For all the above reasons, we find Claimant has failed to meet his burden in establishing his claim for negligence, and Claimant’s claim is hereby denied