DEBORAH BUCKINGHAM v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (2014)

OPINION

Claimant seeks the recovery of damages for a fall that she sustained on October 24, 2005, in the James R. Thompson Center located at 100 W. Randolph, Chicago, Illinois (Thompson Center). She asserts Respondent's negligence in allowing water to accumulate as a result of water dripping from the Thompson Center skylights into the public areas of the Thompson Center. As a result of her fall, Claimant alleges injuries to her head, back, neck, left arm and buttocks. In addition, she claims she experienced dizziness and difficulty with her memory. Claimant seeks compensation for medical bills in the amount of $6,337.03, lost income in the amount of $1,483.20, pain and suffering in the range of $5,000 to $10,000, and loss of normal life in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. A hearing was conducted by Commissioner Maritza Martinez.

At the hearing before the Commissioner, Claimant testified she works at the Cook County Traffic Court, located at the Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois. On the day of the incident, Claimant rode the Chicago Transit Authority elevated “Green Line” train, exiting at the Thompson Center around 7:30 a.m. From there, Claimant walked south through the Thompson Center and headed toward the doors at the Clark and Randolph side of the Thompson Center. As Claimant walked towards Clark and Randolph, she approached the escalators on the ground level to the second floor where she slipped and fell on a large puddle of water. Prior to falling and landing in the three by four foot accumulation of clear water, Claimant had not noticed the water. At the hearing, Claimant stated she fell very hard in a backwards motion with her head and the left side of her body striking the floor. As Claimant lay on the Thompson Center's floor, she said she noticed water dripping from the glass skylight of the Thompson Center. She also said she had fallen on the tile floor located directly below the glass skylight.

Tyrone Keelen is a maintenance worker at the Thompson Center. He is an employee of the State of Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS). CMS provides janitorial services at the Thompson Center. Keelen testified via deposition that he witnessed Claimant's fall on October 24, 2005. Specifically, Keelen testified that there were problems with the skylight leaking before Claimant's fall. He said the glass skylight leaked water onto the ground level including the area by the escalators to the second floor every time that it rained. When this happened, CMS staff would place fifty gallon garbage cans to collect the leaking water and would use wet vacuums to remove the water from the floor. In addition, CMS placed “Wet Floor” signs at the three ground level entrances of the Thompson Center. Keelen stated that Claimant was not the first pedestrian that he witnessed fall due to slipping on water that had leaked through the skylight of the Thompson Center.

On the date of the incident, the Thompson Center opened to the public at 6:30 a.m., the beginning of Keelen's 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift. It was raining very hard and the glass skylight was leaking onto the ground level. In addition, because of the time of day the lighting in the building was dim because all of the lights had not come on yet and it was still dark outside.

By the time that Claimant arrived at the Thompson Center, Keelen had cleaned the west side of the building and was walking towards the east side to begin cleaning up the water from the leaks on that side of the building. Keelen was the only CMS staff member present at the time. As Keelen walked towards the east side of the Thompson Center, he leaned down to look for water on the floor and noticed a puddle of water on the ground level near the escalator to the second floor. Keelen indicated at the deposition that the water could only be seen at a certain angle due to the poor lighting on that day. The puddle was approximately four feet wide, clear in color and hard to see. Keelen believes that the water on the floor came from the leak in the Thompson Center's skylight. There were no signs or buckets in the area near the puddle. Keelen saw Claimant walking in the path of the puddle that had formed from the leaky skylight. Before he could warn her, Claimant fell backwards, flew in the air, and landed in the water.

Frank Marchelewski, the Acting Manager of the Thompson Center on October 24, 2005, was responsible for the oversight of the Thompson Center building. Since January of 2005, when he became Acting Manager of the Thompson Center, Marchelewski was aware of the leaking glass skylight at the Thompson Center. Marchelewski testified (also by deposition) that when it rained, water leaked onto the ground level in the area under the skylight. He said that repairs to the skylight required approval by the Capital Development Board (CDB), an agency of the State of Illinois. CMS is responsible for informing CDB about any such repairs that needed to be performed and then CDB would arrange for the repairs.

Bill Byerley, the Chief Engineer of CMS, testified that the Thompson Center officially opened in 1985. The ceiling of the building consists of a roof and a glass skylight. The glass skylight hovers over the area that is open to the general public. The leaks in the skylight were first identified during building construction in 1984. Since construction, the skylight has leaked onto the ground level of the Thompson Center nearly every time it rained heavily. In 2003, the Thompson Center's roof, but not its skylight, was repaired. CMS made attempts to stop the leaking of the skylight but none were successful. At the time of Claimant's fall, CMS had alerted CDB that the Thompson Center's skylight leaked at every rainfall.

As a result of her fall, Claimant claims injuries to her head, back, neck, left arm, and buttocks, while also experiencing dizziness. On the day of the accident, Claimant's primary care physician referred her to the emergency room at Rush University Medical Center, where a CT scan of her brain was performed. Claimant's CT scan results were normal and her physical examination indicated that she was bright and alert. She was discharged from Rush University Medical Center with diagnoses of a head contusion and left cervical and back strain. Claimant was prescribed 800 mg of Ibuprofen for pain relief and 750 mg of Robaxin, a muscle relaxer.

During the course of Claimant's follow up care with Dr. Slusarenko at Affiliated Health Care Associates, therapy was prescribed for Claimant. Therapy continued through January 25, 2006, by which time Claimant's symptoms had improved. Claimant's injuries as documented in the emergency room notes differ significantly from her follow up care physician's notes with respect to Claimant's reporting of her injuries. Specifically, at the Rush University Medical Center emergency room, Claimant told at least two nurses, once during triage, later during a nursing assessment, that she did not lose consciousness after her fall. But during subsequent treatment with Dr. Slusarenko at Affiliated Health Care Associates, Claimant reported to her physician that she did lose consciousness after her fall. Claimant testified during the hearing that the physician note written by Dr. Slusarenko at Affiliated Health Care Associates is correct and that following her fall, she did experience memory and concentration issues requiring her to miss twelve days of work at the Cook County Traffic Court. According to Claimant, her memory and concentration issues also prevented her from fulfilling her duties at work, which included disseminating information to the public in person and by telephone. In addition to finding it difficult to concentrate after her fall, Claimant said she spent a longer time recalling information and answering questions.

Additionally, for three months after her fall, Claimant said she was unable to continue to drive herself to and from her regular activities. She said both her difficulty in recalling the words to songs, in addition to her physical discomfort, forced her to stop serving as the choir director for her church for one month. For these same reasons, Claimant was unable to attend her traveling gospel group practices and activities. Claimant also required assistance from her niece to take care of Claimant's household's needs. Three months after her fall, Claimant's doctor discharged Claimant from treatment and noted in his prognosis that Claimant had reached maximum improvement.

ANALYSIS

The State of Illinois owes a duty of reasonable care in maintaining its premises. Berger v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 40 Ill.Ct.Cl. 120 (1988). To maintain a negligence claim against Respondent, the Claimant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) the State breached its duty of reasonable care; 2) that the breach proximately caused the injury; and 3) that the State had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Secor v. State, 44 Ill.Ct.Cl. 215 (1991). Respondent admits that it had a duty to maintain its premises in a safe condition and that it had actual notice that the glass skylight leaked every time that it rained. Tyrone Keelen, Respondent's maintenance worker at the Thompson Center, testified that on October 24, 2005, water on the floor from the leaky skylight caused the Claimant to fall.

The State had a twenty year notice of the leaks on rainy days in the Thompson Center. Respondent responds to these allegations by citing delays caused by the appropriation process for capital expenditure repairs, the inherent limitations of such a system (being that it does not allow for an immediate reaction, but instead requires CMS to inform CDB of a potential problem that may give rise to a capital expenditure and appropriation to pay for the project), and that the State not only maintains the Thompson Center, but hundreds of other buildings throughout the State.

This Court finds that these defenses are inadequate. Despite having notice of the leaks, Respondent opened the Thompson Center to the public on a dark and rainy day before the lights had even completely turned on in the building. Respondent manned it with one employee who was armed with a mop, wet vacuum, and three “Wet Floor” signs, and wasn't even given a head start at cleaning up the puddles of water. Assigning one person to locate every puddle in a dimly lit facility, much less clean up those puddles as they continue to reappear due to persistent rain, amid a sea of commuters arriving to downtown Chicago on a work day was an inadequate response. This is especially true in light of the fact that the State had twenty years notice of the problem and was reminded of the issue every time that it rained. Respondent may very well have avoided Claimant's injuries by waiting to open the building until the lights had fully turned on (allowing Claimant to quite possibly see the puddle herself and avoid it), until “Wet Floor' signs had been appropriately interspersed along the ground level of the Thompson Center where puddles were known to accumulate over the previous 20 years, or until a sufficient number of maintenance workers had arrived at the Thompson Center from CMS to assist Keelen in the task of cleaning up the puddles of water and/or putting up additional “Wet Floor” signs. Simply put, without having sufficient means by which to address the puddles of water that had accumulated due to the leaks in the skylight, the Thompson Center created a risk of injury to the public.

Respondent breached its duty to Claimant by 1) failing to adequately light the premises so that the water on the floor could be seen by pedestrians; 2) failing to warn pedestrians of the dangerous condition by placing signs within the Thompson Center or near its puddles of water; 3) opening the building, and/or that portion of the building where puddles had not yet been attended to, for use by the public when it was unsafe to do so; and 4) failing to provide adequate resources to appropriately and timely clean the water on the floor. This breach of duty is the direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by Claimant.

AWARD

Claimant is entitled to compensation for her medical bills in the amount of $6,337.03. She is also entitled to the income loss for the twelve days that she was unable to work, amounting to $1,483.20. The medical records cast doubt, however, on the extent of injuries claimed. Claimant told at least two nurses in the Rush University Medical Center emergency room, once during triage, later during a nursing assessment, that she did not lose consciousness after her fall. Yet during subsequent treatment with Dr. Slusarenko at Affiliated Health Care Associates, Claimant reported to her physician that she did lose consciousness after her fall. Additionally, the CT scan of Claimant's brain performed at Rush University Medical Center was normal, and her physical examination indicated that she was bright and alert. Claimant's subjective complaints about her memory and concentration issues are inconsistent with the medical findings in Claimant's very own medical records. Nevertheless, Claimant is entitled to some compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of a normal life associated with Claimant's fall and during the period of her recovery. The amount of compensation sought by Claimant is not supported by the evidence regarding the extent of Claimant's injuries. For the pain and suffering associated with the injuries suffered by Claimant, it is this Court's order that Claimant is entitled to receive $1,500 in compensation. For her loss of a normal life she is entitled to receive $1,500 in compensation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant's claim is GRANTED in the amount of $10,820.23.

BIRNBAUM, J.