DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2011)

OPINION AND ORDER

Factual BackgroundI. Claimant's Case

On behalf of the Claimant, Lamas Alexander testified that on January 22, 2008, he was driving Claimant's vehicle. At approximately 9:15 a.m., Mr. Alexander left work at the Bolingbrook Park District. Mr. Alexander testified that it had snowed heavily the night before and because of the heavy snow he was going to drive to his elderly fathers house to shovel his driveway and sidewalk. While driving on 1-355 south in Claimants car, Mr. Alexander testified that upon approaching the 159th Street overpass, he saw snow falling from the overpass. Additionally, he testified that he saw a snowplow truck pushing the snow off of the overpass. Mr. Alexander stated that he could not see the color of the truck because of the snow. Mr. Alexander testified that he was traveling at approximately 55 miles per hour and could not see to the right or left of his car because of the snow and ice which fell on the windshield. This snow and ice caused the windshield on Claimants car to shatter, also impairing Mr. Alexanders vision, as well as causing the rearview mirror to fall off. Mr. Alexander testified that glass fell on his face and his body and he had to close his eyes while driving because of all of the glass debris. He testified that when he was able to open his eyes, he used his sideview mirrors and proceeded to stop on 1-355 souths right-hand shoulder. At that time Mr. Alexander testified that he called his father to tell him about the damage to Claimants car and waited for a State Trooper to come upon the scene. It was at that time or shortly thereafter that a State Trooper arrived on the scene and assessed the damage. Mr. Alexander testified that he got out of the car and saw a truck on top of the 159th Street overpass. It was at this time that the State Trooper wrote a vehicle accident report which is attached to the Claimants complaint. Mr. Alexander testified that the Trooper escorted Mr. Alexander off of the highway and allowed him to drive home with his hazard lights on. After this, Mr. Alexander testified that he called his attorney and was told how to file a claim in the Court of Claims with estimates for repairs to the car.

Upon cross-examination, Mr. Alexander stated that the vehicle in question was owned by his daughter. Mr. Alexander then, using Respondents Exhibit Number 1, for identification purposes, showed the Assistant Attorney General where he was driving on I355. Mr. Alexander stated that he was in the middle lane of 1-355 when he saw ice chunks falling from the overhead. Mr. Alexander testified that he did close his eyes because he was afraid of getting glass in his eyes. He stated that when he could open his eyes, he looked in the sideview mirrors to move his car to the right. Mr. Alexander testified that shortly after the accident he got out of his car and saw a truck sitting on the ramp of 1-355. Upon further cross-examination, Mr. Alexander showed the pictures of the damage. These pictures included the windshield being shattered, front damage on the hood and front hood light out. Additionally, Mr. Alexander testified that the rearview mirror in the car fell at the time that the ice chunks fell on the windshield. These documents and pictures were admitted into evidence without objections.

II. The States Case

The State then called Mr. Alexander to testify. Mr. Alexander testified that on pages 7 and 8 of Claimants complaint was a letter he sent to the Illinois Department of Transportation in which he hand-wrote in detail how the accident occurred. He read verbatim the paragraph in which he stated that he saw a yellow snowplow truck turn on to 159th Street from the 1-355 northbound exit and make a left-hand turn and begin plowing the snow and ice over the overpass. Mr. Alexander read his paragraph into the record. Mr. Alexander then testified at trial that he was not sure if it was a yellow truck or an orange truck.

Mr. Alexander testified that page 9 of Claimants complaint was the Illinois State Police Incident Report which the Trooper typed up at the scene. On that report, Mr. Alexander told the Trooper that it was unknown if the snowplow was a tollway truck or another truck. Mr. Alexander testified that he made a claim to the Illinois Tollway Department and spoke with Kathleen Miller from the Illinois Tollway Department who told him how to proceed with filing a claim for damages. Ms. Miller also told Mr. Alexander that if the Illinois Tollway Department denied his claim that he should then contact IDOT. Mr. Alexander testified that he did not know if any other cars were damaged and that it was not rush hour traffic at the time of the incident. Mr. Alexander also added that the highway was very clear of snow.

Additionally, Mr. Alexander testified to the two attachments on Claimants complaint which indicated that on page 12 there was $2,198.00 estimate for repair and on page 14, there was a $2,333.05 estimate for repair. Mr. Alexander testified that the vehicle was never repaired due to the fact that the car was worth less than the repair bills. He testified that he left the car in his townhouse complex for three months but was told by the Association that he had to move the car. Mr. Alexander testified that he junked the car. He also testified that he bought the car for $1,700 for his daughter.

The State then called Illinois Department of Transportation employee Frank Klupshas to testify on the States behalf. Mr. Klupshas testified that he was employed by IDOT for 41 years and 3 months and is the Illinois Department of Transportation District Manager. Mr. Klupshas testified that he is a team section technician and his duties include the maintenance of state highways southwest of Will County and his office is located at 175th and Lockport. He stated that maintenance for the IDOT roads in which he supervises would include the maintenance of the roads, retrieving and disposing of dead animals, snow and ice removal, pot hole patching and any other repairs needed on the Illinois roads located under his jurisdiction.

In reviewing Respondents Exhibit Number 2 for identification purposes, the Department Report, Mr. Klupshas testified that on page 5 was his report. He stated that he was told that there was a storm warning on January 21, 2008 and at that time had a full crew working all twelve routes. Initially they were expecting 1-3 inches of snow but later on that day the storm was upgraded to 2-6 inches. Because of the large amount of snow that was expected, Mr. Klupshas testified that he had all of his 12 snowplow trucks working at that time. It was approximately 8:40 in the morning when the day crew reported for service and finished up all the clean up operations as the snowstorms had subsided at that time. Mr. Klupshas testified that all of his 12 snowplows are not the same size and that there are 12 routes with one snowplow on each route. Mr. Klupshas testified that there would have been one truck covering the 159th Street overpass and this was outlined on page 4 of the Departmental Report in blue highlight. Mr. Klupshas testified that none of his workers would ever plow 1-355 or the exit and entrance ramps as they are maintained by the Illinois Tollway. Because his vehicles are not allowed on the tollway and do not have IPasses, he would never expect one of his vehicles to be on the tollway.

Mr. Klupshas testified that all of his vehicles are orange in color. Mr. Klupshas testified that Illinois Tollway vehicles plow the exit ramps as well as the highway underneath the exit ramps. He testified that the Illinois Tollway truck would have to ride on top of the 159th Street overpass to get to either an exit or entrance ramp to plow. Mr. Klupshas testified that all Illinois Tollway trucks are orange and black. Mr. Klupshas testified that he does not know the colors of the other municipalities trucks that also travel over his roads. Mr. Klupshas also added in his testimony that there are many other trucks that plow snow and include landscaping trucks that also work as plows in the winter.

Mr. Klupshas testified that the procedure for his workers to plow over the 159 th Street overpass would be to plow the snow against the middle median for the two lanes that are closest to the median. The two outer lanes would be plowed by having the plow perpendicular to the truck and carrying the snow directly in front of the truck and then depositing the snow at a safe grassy area after the overpass. It is not protocol for the plow trucks to ever allow snow to fall over the overpass.

Upon cross-examination, Mr. Klupshas stated that all of his trucks were on the road the evening of January 21, 2008 and early morning of January 22, 2008. Mr. Klupshas testified that he has never had a case in his 41 years of one of his drivers plowing an overpass and shoving snow onto the highway. Mr. Klupshas testified that he keeps in contact with his trucks by two-way radios and again testified that he did not know the colors of the other municipalities' snowplows.

The State then asked that the Departmental Report be admitted into evidence and that the disc of pictures also be admitted into evidence. These documents were admitted into evidence without objection.

In closing, the Claimant testified that he assumed that the truck used was an IDOT truck. The Respondent indicated that IDOT does not have any yellow trucks and that the Court of Claims does not have any jurisdiction over the Illinois Tollway Authority. Additionally, Respondent argued that the car was worth only $1,700.00.

Legal Analysis

It is the duty of the State to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and care of highways in order that defective and dangerous conditions likely to injure persons lawfully on the highway shall not exist. The exercise of reasonable care requires the State to keep its highways reasonably safe. Kraemer v. State, (1990) 42 Ill. Ct. Cl. 236, 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. Claimant bears the burden of proving the elements of his or her cause of action. Id.

Based on Respondent's Departmental Report and the testimony presented by Mr. Alexander in this matter, the court finds that Respondent's actions were not the proximate cause of the damage to Claimant's vehicle. In the case at bar, this Court has examined the record and all documents that were admitted into evidence. After reviewing all of the testimony, maps, photographs and other documentation, this Court finds that while the overpass on 159th Street is a State highway, the yellow snowplow truck, which allegedly snow plowed the overpass on 159th Street, was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence to be an Illinois Department of Transportation truck. The incident reported as well as Claimant's father's own hand-written account, which was submitted to the Illinois Department of Transportation as well as attached to the complaint, details that a yellow snow plow truck turned on to the 159th Street overpass from 1-355 northbound exit. This information, which was compiled shortly after the incident and is much more reliable than the testimony of Claimant's witness some one year and nine months after the incident, refutes that the snow plow was an IDOT vehicle.

Moreover, the testimony by a District Manager of the Illinois Department of Transportation revealed that IDOT trucks are not yellow and that IDOT trucks do not plow tollways or tollway ramps. Additionally, testimony was had by the IDOT District Manager in which he detailed procedures on how an overpass is plowed by his workers. In the case at bar, the evidence indicates that the truck that damaged Claimants car was not that of an IDOT truck but possibly from a private snowplow company or other municipality located nearby the 159th Street overpass, including the Illinois Tollway.

Based on the foregoing, we find this claim must be denied due to Claimant's failure to prove that an IDOT truck plowed the 159th Street overpass and was a proximate cause of the damage to Claimant's vehicle. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that this claim be and is hereby dismissed.

STORINO, J.