WALLACE v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2010)

OPINION

The Claimant, Virgie Wallace, brings this claim in Tort seeking $508.74 for property damage repairs to her vehicle due to the alleged failure of the State to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition. The parties agreed to waive the presence of a court reporter to transcribe the proceedings.

Factual Background

Claimant testified that on March 16, 2006, at approximately 10:00 AM, she was driving her 2002 Cadillac Deville northbound on Bishop Ford near 130th Street in Chicago, Illinois. While Claimant was driving on the inside lane, her vehicle struck a large rock in the roadway causing damage to her vehicle's oil pan. Claimant estimated the rock was about four to five inches wide. The Claimant submitted a paid bill from Riverdale Body Shop located in Chicago Heights in the amount of $508.74 for repairs to her vehicle. Claimant filed a property damage claim with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). In its letter dated August 2, 2006, IDOT denied her claim, stating that based on its investigation it found no liability on its part for damage to Claimant's car.

Respondent's Departmental Report was admitted into evidence at hearing and indicated that IDOT made a diligent search of all incident reports, complaints, and records kept in the normal course of business from February 16, 2006, through March 18, 2006, and found that there were no prior complaints about an alleged hazard at the location in question. The lack of any prior complaints was confirmed by the testimony of IDOT Litigation Representative Sharon Watson. Claimant testified that she did not have any knowledge as to the length of time the rock she struck had been in the roadway.

Analysis

The State has a duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition. Blair v. State (1994), 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 242, 242-43. However, the State is not an insurer against all accidents that may occur by reason of the condition of its highways. Scroggins v. State (1991), 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 225, 226. To prevail in a negligence action, the Claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the State breached its duty of reasonable care, (2) the State's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, (3) a dangerous condition or defect existed, and (4) the State had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Id. at 227. Hanawell v. State (1995), 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 270, 275.

Based on Respondent's IDOT Report and Sharon Watson's testimony at trial, the Court finds that Respondent did not have actual notice of a rock in the roadway at the location. To prove that Respondent had constructive notice of the condition, Claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defect: (1) was substantial enough that immediate repairs should be made, and (2) existed for such a length of time that a reasonable person would have had an opportunity to make the repairs. Aetna Casualty v. State (1984), 37 Ill.Ct.Cl. 179, 181. Here, Claimant has failed to establish that Respondent had constructive notice of the rock in the roadway as she was unable to provide any information regarding the length of time the rock had been in the roadway. Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondent was not negligent because it did not have either constructive or actual notice of the rock in the roadway.

THEREFORE, it is Hereby Ordered that Claimant's Complaint is DENIED.

STORINO, J.