GLENDA NETTER v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2003)

OPINION

Claimant, Glenda Netter, seeks judgment against Respondent, State of Illinois, for injuries she alleges she suffered when she slipped and fell while visiting Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). Claimant alleges her injuries occurred as the result of negligence on the part of Respondent's Illinois Department of Corrections.

A Hearing was held on October 17, 2001. The record includes: the transcript of testimony; Claimant's Exhibits 1 through 4; the Evidence Deposition of Dr. Paul Pride: the Discovery Depositions of Gloria Diamond Smith, Mary Beth Engel and Jacques Beardsley which the parties agreed to have considered as Evidence Depositions. Respondent filed a brief, but Claimant did not.

On July 24, 1994 Claimant traveled from Champaign, Illinois to Sheridan to visit her son. When her visit was completed she slipped and fell as she entered the waiting room after leaving the visiting area. She maintains she slipped on a pool of water that had been allowed to remain on the floor after the floor had been washed. She alleges Respondent was negligent in allowing the water to remain on the floor as well as failing to warn that the floor was wet and slippery.

The layout of the area where the incident occurred is depicted in the Gloria Diamond Smith Deposition (Smith Deposition) Exhibit 4 and the Mary Beth Engel Deposition (Engel Deposition) Exhibit 2. A visitor enters the waiting area through a front entrance. The sign in/sign out desk is to the visitor's left after entering the waiting area. Past the desk at the back of the waiting area is a locked, swinging door which is an entry to an inner lock area After this door is unlocked and the visitor passes through the door there is a door to the visitor's left which is the entry to the visiting area. A visitor must wait in the inner lock area while the door to the visiting area is unlocked and opened. A visitor then proceeds through the door into the visiting area. Following a visit a visitor proceeds back through the door into the inner lock area and then through the swinging door into the waiting area where the sign in/sign out desk is now to the visitor's right.

Claimant testified that following her visit with her son she proceeded through the door from the visiting area to the inner lock area with some other people. She then proceeded through the swinging door into the waiting area where she had to go to sign out. She stated, but as I got right out the swing door, next thing I know I was lying on the floor. After she hit the floor she realized it was wet with a soap-like solution. She thought she fell forward and landed on the floor on her right knee, elbow, and hip and then sat up. The pain she first noticed after the fall was in her right knee which she described as severe. She also noticed pain in her hip. Following the fall Claimant testified she was assisted by a female guard and another guard who called a nurse who came to Claimant's assistance. The nurse informed Claimant an ambulance had been called. When the ambulance arrived Claimant's right leg was placed in an air splint and she was then taken to Community Hospital of Ottawa. After x-rays were taken at the hospital a doctor informed Claimant that nothing broken had been found, but she had a severe bruise on the outside of her right knee. Claimant was then released from the hospital and driven back to Champaign by Donna Jenkins who had gone with Claimant to visit another resident at Sheridan.

Claimant testified that following her fall the dress she was wearing was soaking wet in the back. She further testified that one of the guards said something to the effect that they had recently mopped and must have left a spot or missed a spot. Claimant did not notice any caution signs or wet floor signs in the area.

On cross examination Claimant testified she did not see the water on the floor before she walked into the area. She described the water as a puddle that was around her as she sat on the floor after the fall. She affirmed on cross examination that she did not see any signs present and also testified she did not see any mp buckets.

Gloria Diamond Smith, a Correctional Officer at Sheridan, was assigned to the waiting area on July 24, 1994, the date of Claimant's accident. Officer Smith testified she prepared an Incident Report at 8:30 pm on July 24, 1994 following the incident. A copy of what she state is the second page of that report is Smith Deposition Exhibit 2 which state in pertinent part:

on the above date and approximate time visitor Glenda Netter, 15 Queensway -- Champaign, IL 61820 fell on the waiting room floor in the CVR. Ms. Netter was visiting inmate Netter B55388. This happened as she was departing the visiting room. This officer was letting other visitors out of the visiting area. When I turned around Ms. Netter was sitting on her buttocks and informed me she had fallen. I then asked her if she was OK and she said no. K8-5 (Lt. Beardsley) and HCU (Nurse Engels) were notified. Sheridan Fire Dept. Ambulance was called Ms. Netter was transported to Ottawa Community Hospital.

Ms. Smith testified that she prepared another Incident Report on August 24, 1995 after receiving a phone call requesting her to write another report on the incident as best as she could remember. She stated she was not given any explanation as to why she needed to prepare a new report and she was not given a copy of the report she prepared on July 24, 1999. A copy of the Incident Report she prepared on August 24, 1995 is Smith Deposition Exhibit 2. It indicates the date and time of the incident as July 24, 1994 at approximately 8:30 pm and states in pertinent part:

on July 24, 1994, I Gloria Diamond, was assigned to the front of the visiting room at Sheridan Correctional Center. At approximately 8:10 pm a child spilled pop over the floor of the waiting area and a cleanup worker was sent into mop up the spill. The mop bucket as left in the waiting area because on the side of the bucket is written caution wet floor. To my knowledge the floor dried within minutes. At approximately 8:30 pm I was letting visitors out of the visiting area into the waiting area and when I secured the door and turned around Ms. Glenda Netter was sitting on her buttocks. I then approached her and asked her if she as OK and what had happened. Ms. Netter then began screaming and moaning that she had fallen and hurt her knee. K-85 (Lt. Beardsley) and the Health Care Unit (Nurse Engels) were notified. Both Lt. Beardsley and Nurse Engles responded to the emergency in the visiting room. At the time Nurse Engels talked to Ms. Netter and called the Sheridan Fire Dept. Ambulance to assist. The Sheridan Fired Dept. Ambulance responded and transferred Ms. Netter to Ottawa Community Hospital.

When asked if she had any recollection of what she would have put in the first report that wasn't included in the second report she responded that it was basically the same. She added that she remembered the incident because she had never had anything like that happen.

Officer Smith testified that Claimant fell approximately five feet from where the mop bucket stating caution wet floor was placed. She also testified Claimant told her she had slipped on water. Officer Smith further testified that maybe thirty people left the visiting area after the floored had been mopped and no one else fell or even slipped.

Mary Beth Engel testified she prepared Engel Deposition 1, a copy of an Incident Report dated July 24, 1994. The Incident Report indicates the date and time as July 24, 1994 at 8:40 p, and it states in pertinent part:

On the above date and approx. Time this nurse responded to CVR's call of a visitor falling. When this nurse arrived, Ms Glenda Kate Netter was sitting on the floor in the front room. She complained of pain in the right knee medial aspect, radiating anteriorly to her hip. No edema, deformity or crepidus was noted at this time. Ms. Netter complained of extreme tenderness or palpitation of medical aspect of rt. Knee. An ice pack was applied locally and I instructed Ms. Diamond the security officer that an ambulance would be needed to transport Ms. Netter to the hospital. When the ambulance arrived, an air splint was applied to the rt. Leg by the ambulance crew. The patient was log rolled to a back board and put on a stretcher. Ms. Netter was then taken to Ottawa Community Hospital per Sheridan Fire Dept. Ambulance.

Ms. Engel testified she thought she found Claimant laying maybe eight to ten feet from the desk located in what she believed to be the reception area. Ms. Engel thought Claimant told her she had slipped on some water. She could not remember whether the floor was wet or whether Claimant's clothes were wet. She also could not remember any buckets with the worked caution on them being in the area Claimant fell.

Captain Jacques Beardsley testified he was working as a Shift Commander on July 24, 1994. At that time he had the rand of Lieutenant. He recalled that at approximately 8:30 pm on July 24, 1994 he responded to a medical emergency call in the visitor's center. When he arrived he found a woman sitting on the floor and five feet from the desk or counter, holding her knee and saying it hurt. He could not recall Claimant's name or what she was wearing. He did remember Claimant telling him she slipped on water on the floor, but he did not see any water. He testified he did not remember seeing any buckets mop, or caution signs in the area. He further testified that an inmate worker would have been assigned to mop up a spill and put a sign up or leave the bucket with a caution sign on the side of it.

The State is not an insurer of the safety of person visiting its buildings. Rather, the State owes a duty of reasonable care to invitees such as Claimant in maintaining its premises. Berger v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois (1988), 40 Ill.Ct.Cl.121, 124. Claimant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the State breached its duty of reasonable care, and that the State had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Hardeman v. State (1995), 47 Ill. Ct.Cl. 292,295.

The testimony of Officer Smith regarding the spill in the waiting area and her request to have it cleaned up shows Respondent had actual notice of the existence of a dangerous condition. The issue that must be resolved is whether Respondent exercised reasonable care in attending to the spill so as to maintain the premises in a safe condition. The evidence presented conflicts regarding liquid remaining on the floor after the spill was mopped. Claimant and Ms. Jenkins testified there was liquid on the floor where Claimant fell and Ms. Jenkins testified she cleaned up liquid with paper towels after she found Claimant on the floor. Officer Smith testified the liquid had dried and Captain Beardsley testified he did not see any water. Nurse Engels could not remember whether the floor was wet. The evidence also conflicts as to whether any warning of a wet floor was given. Claimant did not notice any caution or wet floor signs. Ms. Jenkins did not notice any signs or buckets. According to Officer Smith, a bucket stating caution we floor was present near the area where the spill occurred. Nurse Engels could not remember any buckets with the word Caution on them being present and Captain Beardsley did not remember seeing any buckets or caution signs in the area.

It is the opinion of this Court that the evidence presented indicates it is more probable than not that the floor caused the fall. The Court accepts the testimony of Claimant and Ms. Jenkins regarding the existence of a liquid where Claimant fell. Further, according to Officer Smith, the spill occurred at approximately 8:10 pm., the accident occurred at 8:30 pm, and the clean up of the spill with a mop occurred between these two times. It is probable that wet residue left from the mopping remained on the floor at 8:30 pm.

It is next necessary to determine whether Respondent took adequate precautions to warn of the wet floor. The only evidence of a warning came from Officer Smith who indicated a bucket with the words caution wet floor written on it was present near the area of the spill. No evidence regarding this bucket was presented such as the color and size of the bucket or the color or size of the warning letters. Without additional evidence of the adequacy of the warning on the bucket, it is the opinion of this Court that even if evidence of the presence of the bucket is accepted, it was insufficient ot properly warn of the wet floor. Mr. Jenkins testified that during her visits to Sheridan prior to Claimant's fall, she always saw a yellow caution sign present when someone was mopping. No evidence was presented that a yellow caution sign was present when Claimant fell.

Since it is the opinion of this Court that Claimant slipped and fell on wet floor and that Respondent failed to provide adequate warning, the Court finds that Claimant has proven Respondent breached its duty of reasonable care in maintaining it premises. The Court further finds that the record does not support Respondent's contention that comparative negligence should be found on the part of Claimant.

For Claimant to recover, the Court must find that Claimant's injuries were caused by Respondent's negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. Gildehaus v. State (1993), 46 Ill. Ct.Cl. 176,185. Claimant has burden of proving her damages, and absent such proof, no award may be entered. Gildehaus, supra. Claimant alleges she sustained permanent injuries to her arms, legs, hips, back and nervous system. She alleges she has incurred and will in the future incur medical expenses as the result of her injuries. Claimant further alleges that due to her injuries she has lost wages and will continue to lose wages in the future

Regarding Claimant's injuries, both Claimant and Donna Jenkins testified Claimant was experiencing pain during the trip back to Champaign after Claimant was released from the hospital following the accident. Claimant testified that when she returned home her husband, Cloyd, and Ms. Jenkins helped her get out of the car and into the house where she sat down on the stairs. Since she was unable to walk up the stairs, she scooted herself up the stairs one step at a time. She testified she could not sleep in her bed that night because it was too low so she slept in a recliner. The following day she went to Dr. Paul Pride, A Chiropractic Physician, who treated her until September 12, 1994, when Claimant determined she could not afford to continue treatment.

Claimant testified that prior to the incident at Sheridan she had previously been injured in 1974 and 1992. In 1974 Claimant suffered a work related injury at Rockwell International in the state of Washington in which she hurt her back, hip and leg. As a result of that injury she was determined to have been disabled and has continued to received disability benefits. In 1992 Claimant injured her back when she slipped and fell while visiting her father at a nursing home. Claimant testified that following the incident at Sheridan she was involved in accidents in 1997 and 1999. In 1997 Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which she suffered injuries to her back and neck. In 1999 she slipped and fell as she was exiting her house when her right knee gave out Claimant testified that prior to the accident at Sheridan she did not have any problems with her right knee and that following that accident the knee had not given out on her a lot. Claimant also testified that the injuries she suffered at Sheridan had hindered her in doing household tasks and volunteer work involving church and schools as well as affecting intimacy with her husband.

On cross examination regarding her injuries, Claimant testified she saw another physician after discontinuing treatment with Dr. Pride in September of 1994 who gave her pain medicine. She also returned to Dr. Pride for treatment after the motor vehicle accident in 1997 and following the slip and fall at her house in 1999, she went to see her general practitioner who referred her to an orthopedist regarding pain and swelling in her knee. She further testified several doctors had informed her she may have arthritis in her hands, knees, back and leg.

Dr. Paul Pride, a Chiropractic Physician in Champaign, Illinois, testified that Claimant came to see him on July 25, 1994, the day after her accident at Sheridan. At the time he found Claimant to be five feet eight inches tall and weighing three hundred forty-four pounds which he described as very excessive. He testified she was having pain on the right side, the right hip and leg, as well as in the right sacroiliac joint, 5th lumbar area which is just below the waist, and from about C7 to T12, which is where the neck meets the shoulders to the last rib just above the waist. Dr. Pride also noted some right knee swelling. He testified he believed Claimant told him she hit her right knee when se fell and he indicated he thought such a fall would bruise the surface of the knee. His test of the knee for ligament damage which would have left the knee unstable were negative, but the testing was reported by Claimant to be painful. When asked whether it is possible to have an injury to the knee of a permanent nature but still have stability, Dr. Pride responded it was indicated that if you had a blow to the knee or compression to the knee, you could injure cartilage in the knee without doing significant damage to the ligaments that affect stability. Dr. Pride also testified there could be injury to the capsular ligament, which is a sleeve that surrounds two bones that abut each other which holds the joints together and allows the joints to be bathed in synovial fluid. Any disruption of a capsular ligament could cause water buildup. Dr. Pride testified he believed Claimant probably had some capsular damage in the knee which would have caused swelling, but he was unable to tell at that point whether she had any meniscal damage which would be a disruption in the cartilage in the knee. He testified he could tell with pretty good certainty she didn't have a tear all the way though the main ligaments which hold the bone in the knee together which are the collateral and cruciate ligaments. He stated he did not perform certain orthopedic tests because Claimant was complaining of pain. He also did not perform x-rays because he understood s-rays that were previously taken were negative.

In Dr. Pride's opinion the symptoms Claimant complained of were consistent with and usually related to the type of injury she described. It was also Dr. Pride's opinion that Claimant had a permanent knee problem as well as a permanent low back and hip problem, but he stated:

Now, whether or not all of that is due to this fall, I would have a hard time certifying to that because I know she had a history of lower back problems prior to this fall. I'm not aware whether she had knee problems prior to this fall.

He further opined that if Claimant had prior knee, low back and hip problems prior to the incident at Sheridan, her fall would have aggravated these conditions.

Dr. Pride treated Claimant's knee with ice packs to try to get the selling under control along with inferential current which was a treatment to increase circulation to the area to decrease pain, spasm, and swelling. He also did adjustments to her knee, spine, lower back and right sacroiliac joint but indicated there was no additional charge for the spinal adjustments. Dr. Pride performed eighteen treatments on Claimant between July 25, 1995 to September 12, 1995 and testified she was making progress. Claimant was charged $1198.00 for these treatments.

On cross examination Dr. Pride testified he did not view the x-rays that were taken following Claimant's fall. In regard to her knee, Dr. Pride testified that given the acute swelling that was present he definitely was treating a new injury, but he could not tell the extent there was some chronic problem there already. He also testified he did not have any way of measuring the amount of aggravation of an injury versus the amount of injury that was pre-existing. He further testified that when Claimant came to see him after being in the motor vehicle accident in 1997 he did not treat her knee, because he believed the knee pain she maintained she was experiencing may have been due to gait changes because of hip and low back problems she having. When Dr. Pride was asked on cross examination what his evaluation of Claimant's knee was when he saw her immediately prior to his evidence deposition taken on October 15, 2001 he stated:

There was still guarding. It remained stable. Distraction of the knee was more painful than compression. She was having pain in the meniscus areas of the medial and lateral aspects. My assessment of her would be that she really needs to see an orthopedist to see what state her knee is. She needs to have somebody look at that and determine whether she needs surgery or whether simple weight loss would control the problem for her or what. I'm sure weight loss would help. But that's a tough thing for her. She was limping. I mean, that's another thing that we need.

Based on the evidence presented regarding Claimant's injuries, this Court finds that Claimant has proven only that she suffered the immediate injury of bruising and swelling of her right knee as a consequence of the fall due to Respondent's negligence. She is therefore entitled to recover damages related to pain, suffering and treatment of an injury of that nature and extend. She has failed to prove she sustained any other immediate or permanent injuries as a result of her fall.

The record indicates the expenses incurred as result of Claimant's knee injury include: $144.00 for ambulance service provided by Sheridan Community Fire Protection District: $367.01 for services provided by Community Hospital of Ottawa; $54.11 for services provided by Illinois Valley Radiologist, Ltd; $1,198.00 for services provided by Dr. Pride. This Court Finds Claimant is entitled to recover a total of $6,000.00 for damages related to her knee injury.

This Court further finds that since Claimant failed to present any evidence to substantiate an award for lose wages, that portion of her claim is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that Claimant is granted an award or $6,000.00 in full and final satisfaction of this claim.

JANN, J.