JERRY ALVAREZ v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

Claimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeks damages for an injury he alleges occurred when he slipped and fell in a shower at Western Illinois Correctional Center (Western). Claimant alleges he was injured due to negligence on the part of the Respondent.

A hearing was held at Dixon Correctional Center on June 22, 2000. The record includes the transcript of the proceedings and Respondent's Exhibit which is the Departmental Report. The parties did not file briefs.

Claimant contends that on November 3, 1997 at approximately 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. he was getting out of a shower at Western when he slipped and fell in the shower. Claimant testified the showers were not maintained properly and there was soap and garbage all over the place. According to Claimant, the showers were supposed to be cleaned three times a day but were not. Claimant stated the lights in the shower were not on when the incident occurred and that there were no shower mats in the area. Claimant was not wearing shower shoes when the incident occurred. He testified he could not afford them. Claimant testified he did not see what he slipped on.

On cross-examination, Claimant speculated that he may have slipped on a bar of soap. He did not, however, remember slipping on a bar of soap. When asked on cross-examination why he entered the shower while it was dark, Claimant indicated that there was a light from the hallway shining a little bit in the shower which he thought at the time was enough to be able to see and negotiate his way through his shower.

Claimant maintains that as a result of the slip and fall he injured his left wrist. He testified he was seen by a nurse the day following the incident who told him he should have an x-ray taken and be seen by a physician. She also gave him an Ace bandage wrist brace. Claimant was wearing the wrist brace on the date of the hearing and testified that his wrist still causes him problems, especially when the weather changes. Although Claimant did not miss any work because of the injury, he testified that he thought his injury would affect his ability to work when released because he cannot pick up anything heavy.

A letter in the Departmental Report from Captain Stephen Ruiz, Litigation Coordinator at Western, indicates he was unable to find any records relating to an incident which occurred on November 3, 1997. He did, however, locate records which are contained in the Departmental Report that indicate Claimant self reported a fall in the shower on October 31, 1997. The Inmate Injury Report in the Departmental Report indicates Claimant was seen on November 1, 1997 at 8:15 p.m. for a medical evaluation during which it was determined Claimant had suffered a sprained left wrist. He was prescribed Motrin and given an ice bag with instructions for use. Medical Progress notes contained in the Departmental Report indicate that on November 13, 1997 an x-ray taken of the wrist on November 7, 1997 was determined to be negative.

Annette Widenor, the Director of Nursing at Dixon, was presented as a witness for Respondent. She testified Claimant's medical records indicated Claimant had suffered a sprained left wrist as the result of a fall in the shower at approximately 8:00 p.m. on October 31, 1997. She further testified that from reviewing the medical records she had determined that the treatment Claimant had received was appropriate for the injury he had suffered. Ms. Widenor also testified that lingering effects from the type of injury Claimant had suffered usually do not occur two to three to four years after the date of the incident. According to Ms Widenor, there was nothing in Claimant's medical records that indicated that the wrist injury suffered by Claimant was unusual in the sense of how it had or had not healed.

Claimant asserts Respondent was negligent by not ensuring that the shower area was clean and by failing to have proper lighting in the shower area. In Conners v State, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 112 (1988), this Court stated at 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 116-177:

This Court has held repeatedly that the State of Illinois owes a duty to inmates of penal institutions to provide reasonably safe conditions. Reddock v. State, 32 Ill.Ct. Cl. 611 (1978). Surfaces such as terrazzo in shower rooms, dormitories, public buildings, etc. are necessary so that the premises can be cleaned and made sanitary. The smooth finish of these surfaces allows for cleaning, but also makes the materials slippery at times. Persons *** using such surfaces know the nature of them and must conduct themselves accordingly. Therefore, falls on such surfaces are often not compensable, absent aggravating circumstances. *** [U]sers are [expected] to conduct themselves with awareness of conditions where terrazzo or other smooth surfaced floors are encountered.

In Blankenship, v. State. 48 Ill.Ct. Cl. 264 (1995), this Court reviewed examples of aggravating circumstances which have rendered prison shower-related slip and falls compensable. The examples cited by the Court at 48 Ill.Ct. Cl. 267 include: an unprotected ventilation fan which precipitated finger lacerations citing Thomas v. State, 40 Ill.Ct. Cl. 188 (1987), mandatory usage of the shower area as a corridor or passageway citing Colev v. State 44 Ill.Ct. Cl. 153, and chronic flooding beyond the confines of the shower area citing Karry v. State, 45 Ill.Ct. Cl. 328 (1997). After reviewing the examples, the Court in Blankenship noted that even in those situations where the aggravating circumstances were present, substantial comparative fault was attributed to inmates in each instance for having lost their balance on a known slippery surface.

Although Claimant may have been confused as to the exact date the incident occurred, the record indicates he did indeed slip and fall in shower at Western. Claimant testified there was soap and garbage in the shower area when he slipped and that shower mats were not present. He further testified that the lights in the shower were not on at the time of the incident and that he was using light from the hallway to negotiate his way through his shower. Respondent did not present any witnesses to refute Claimant's testimony concerning the conditions and lighting in the shower area. It is the opinion of this Court that the conditions and lack of lighting described by Claimant constitute aggravating circumstances which contributed to Claimant's accident. This Court therefore finds that Respondent is liable for Claimant's injury due to its failure to provide reasonably safe conditions in the shower area. This Court further finds that Respondent has failed to prove any comparative negligence on the part of Claimant.

Based on the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of Claimant's injury, the Claimant is awarded $200.00.

MITCHELL, J.