STATE OF
ILLINOIS )
)
SS.
COUNTY
OF C O O K )
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
PATRICIA
CORCORAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 95 L 00442
)
SAUK
TRAILS, INC., a Corporation, )
)
)
Defendant. )
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOW COMES the Defendant, SAUK
TRAILS, INC., a Corporation, by and through its attorney, LAW OFFICES OF LOWELL
D. SNORF, III, and moves this Honorable Court pursuant to 735 ILCS Par.
2-5/1005 for summary judgement as to Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint. There is no material issue of fact that SAUK
TRAILS, INC. (hereafter “Sauk Trails”), breached any duty to the Plaintiff,
PATRICIA CORCORAN, or was the proximate cause of PATRICIA CORCORAN’S August 21,
1993 slip and fall occurring on a SAUK TRAILS’ bus.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, PATRICIA CORCORAN,
claims to have fallen on SAUK TRAILS’ bus stairs in the early morning hours of August 21,
1993. SAUK TRAILS owned coach bus #200
on which Plaintiff, PATRICIA CORCORAN, was a passenger. Norman Jamerson was the driver of the SAUK
TRAILS bus on the date of the accident.
As a result of her August 21, 1993 slip and fall, PATRICIA CORCORAN
filed a two count complaint, (Exhibit “1”).
Count I of the complaint was directed against NAPERVILLE CHARTER,
INC. By motion of November 2, 1995 the
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed NAPERVILLE CHARTER, INC. An order was entered
dismissing NAPERVILLE CHARTER, INC., (Exhibit “2”).
Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint is
directed against SAUK TRAILS. Count II,
Par. 7 of Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that SAUK TRAILS had a duty to exercise
reasonable care in the maintenance of
its bus. Par. 8 of Count II focuses on
SAUK TRAILS’ negligence in allowing water to accumulate on the SAUK TRAILS’ bus
steps.
SAUK TRAILS answered the complaint,
asserting various affirmative defenses, (Exhibit “3”). The Plaintiff answered the affirmative
defenses, (Exhibit “4”).
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
The Plaintiff, PATRICIA CORCORAN,
was deposed on April 16, 1996, (Exhibit “5,” discovery deposition of PATRICIA
CORCORAN with Exhibits “A-E”). PATRICIA
CORCORAN testified that on the morning of August 20, 1993 she and her son went
to Bill and Ed’s Maple Inn, on 16th Street in Berwyn (Exhibit “5,” p. 6). She and her son were with a group going to
the Irish Fest in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Exhibit “5,” p. 11). They were to travel by bus. When PATRICIA CORCORAN got on the bus it was
clean, (Exhibit “5,” p. 13). They left
Bill and Ed’s Maple Inn at 10:30 a.m.; it took five to six hours to get to
Milwaukee because of traffic, (Exhibit “5,” p. 12-13, 17). Liquor was served on the bus, but not by
anyone from SAUK TRAILS, (Exhibit “5,” p. 14).
She did not know where the liquor was stored, (Exhibit “5,” p. 14-15).
On the way to the Fest, she did not
see any water on the bus floor, (Exhibit “5,” p. 19). On the way to the Irish Fest she had one hot
Bailey’s and coffee, (Exhibit “5,” p. 19).
They arrived at the Irish Fest at 4:00 p.m., (Exhibit “5,” p. 20). She was at the Fest from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m., (Exhibit “5,” p. 20-21). She got
back to the SAUK TRAILS bus at 10:00 p.m.
The return trip from Milwaukee to Bill and Ed’s Maple Inn took two
hours, (Exhibit “5,” p. 25). The bus
left at 12:00 p.m.
The bus arrived back at Bill and Ed’s
Maple Inn at 2:00 a.m., (Exhibit “5,” p. 27).
PATRICIA CORCORAN was sitting
mid-bus on the right side with her son, (Exhibit “5,” p. 27). Arriving at Bill and Ed’s Maple Inn, people
started getting off the bus. She heard
no complaints that the floor was dirty, or that the stairs were not properly
maintained, (Exhibit “5,” p. 28). At no
time while she was on the bus did she overhear complaints to the driver that
the bus was not properly equipped or maintained, (Exhibit “5,” p. 29). She made no complaints to the driver the bus
was either improperly equipped or had improper hand railings, (Exhibit “5,” p.
29). At no time did she make complaints
to the driver that the steps were slippery, (Exhibit “5,” p. 29-30). As other passengers got off, she noticed the
aisles were wet. The bus had hand
railings, (Exhibit “5,” p. 30). She had
been on these buses before and was familiar with where the railings were,
(Exhibit “5,” p. 30). She never heard
any complaints from anyone that the stairs were slippery or unsafe, (Exhibit “5,”
p. 30).
Upon arriving back at Bill and Ed’s
Maple Inn, she got up from her bus seat and walked toward the front of the
coach, (Exhibit “5,” p. 30-31). She
walked up the aisle to the coach steps, (Exhibit “5,” p. 31). The interior coach lights were on, (Exhibit “5,”
p. 31). She started to descend the
stairs while grabbing hand railings on her left and right, (Exhibit “5,” p.
31). She knew the floor was wet,
(Exhibit “5,” p. 32). She stepped onto
the first step and her feet went out from under her, and she fell, (Exhibit “5,”
p. 32-33). While she said the stair was
wet, she did not know what was causing it to be wet or how long it was wet,
(Exhibit “5,” p. 32). Prior to her fall,
she heard no complaints by other passengers that the stairs were wet, (Exhibit “5,”
p. 32). Other than the water, she did
not know what she slipped on; there was no other defect in the stairs, (Exhibit
“5,” p. 34). Nothing that the bus driver
did caused her to fall, (Exhibit “5,” p. 36).
She was not sure how long the water was on the floor before she fell,
(Exhibit “5,” p. 42).
Norman Jamerson was the driver of
the SAUK TRAILS bus on the morning of PATRICIA CORCORAN’S fall. He was deposed on April 24, 1996. His deposition is marked Exhibit “6,” with
Exhibits “A,” “2,” and “3.” Norman Jamerson
testified he arrived at Bill and Ed’s Maple Inn at 10:30 a.m. to take a group
to the Irish Fest, (Exhibit “6,” p. 6, 8).
Coolers were brought on the bus, but they were not supplied by SAUK
TRAILS, (Exhibit “6,” p. 10). The bus
left Bill and Ed’s Maple Inn, arriving at the Festival at 1:00 p.m., (Exhibit “6,”
p. 11). He received no complaints by any
passengers that there was anything spilled on the floor or that the stairs were
wet, (Exhibit “6,” p. 16).
On the return trip from the
Festival, the bus did not leave Milwaukee until 1:00 a.m., (Exhibit “6,” p.
12). On the way up to the Festival, no
complaints were made to him that the bus was dirty, that the floor was slippery
or wet, that the hand railings were improper, that the lighting was bad, or
that the bus was improperly maintained, (Exhibit “6,” p. 12-13). When they left the Fest, the coach interior
was in good condition, (Exhibit “6,” p. 15).
The floors were not slippery or wet; the lights worked and the hand
railings were in place, (Exhibit “6,” pp. 15-16).
They arrived back at Bill and Ed’s
Maple Inn at 2:15 a.m. and he did not see any debris on the floor. He heard no complaints that the floor was
wet, (Exhibit “6,” p. 18). He never
received any complaints that the stairs were wet, slippery, or dangerous,
(Exhibit “6,” p. 18).
When they arrived at Bill and Ed’s,
he took a cooler off the bus, (Exhibit “6,” p. 19). He did not notice the cooler leaking water,
nor did he receive complaints that it was, (Exhibit “6,” p. 19). When he arrived back at Bill and Ed’s, he
received no complaints that the stairs were slippery or wet, or that the bus
needed cleaning or was otherwise unsafe, (Exhibit “6,” p. 20). He was told by someone that PATRICIA CORCORAN
had fallen. No complaints were made to
him that the coolers were leaking water on the floor, (Exhibit “6,” p. 21).
ARGUMENT
I.
PATRICIA
CORCORAN HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT SAUK TRAILS
BREACHED
ANY DUTY OWING TO HER, OR WAS THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF
HER SLIP OR FALL
In order to hold SAUK TRAILS
responsible for the Plaintiff's fall, it must be established SAUK TRAILS owed a duty to PATRICIA CORCORAN
and then breached the duty owed to PATRICIA CORCORAN. Similarly, it must be established that SAUK
TRAILS actions or inactions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall.
Plaintiff alleges in Par. 7 of her
Complaint the bus was not properly maintained, (Exhibit “1,” Par. 7). She alleges in Par. 8 that water accumulated
on the bus stairs causing her to fall, (Exhibit “1,” Par. 8). In her Complaint, she alleges leaky coolers
caused this water accumulation. Id. However, in her deposition, she knew nothing
about a leaky cooler causing the water accumulation. Specifically, she had no knowledge where
the water came from, how long it was present, or whether Norman Jamerson knew
it was present, (Exhibit “5,” p. 32, 42).
As such, her unsupported Complaint allegations do not raise a question
of fact in a summary judgement proceeding.
Lesnick v. Estate of Lesnick.
82 Ill. App. 3d 1102, 403 N.E. 2d 683, 687 (1st Dist., 1980); Kimbrough
v. Jewel Companies, Inc. 92 Ill.
App. 3d 813, 416 N.E. 2d 328 (1st Dist., 1981).
Further, Norman Jamerson testified that any coolers on the bus were
brought on by bus passengers and not supplied by SAUK TRAILS (Exhibit “6,” p.
10).
There is further no testimony of
what effect, if any, the stair water had on her fall. PATRICIA CORCORAN testified that she got out
of her seat at around 2:00 a.m. and walked toward the front of the Coach
(Exhibit “5,” p. 30-31). She had been on
these buses before. Id. She noticed aisle-ways were lit, and the hand
railings in place. Id. She grabbed the hand railing first, because
the floor was wet (Exhibit “5,” p. 32).
She stepped down, and her feet went out from under her. In essence, her testimony is that she noticed
the floor was wet, grabbed the hand railings, stepped down, and then her legs
went out from under her (Exhibit “5,” p. 34).
This testimony hardly establishes that any action or inaction on SAUK
TRAILS part caused her fall. For that
matter, the existence or non-existence of water on either the floor or the
steps has not been shown to have made the bus steps slippery. Similarly, the existence of stair water has
not been established as causing her fall.
It is incumbent upon the Plaintiff
to factually establish that SAUK TRAILS was responsible for the accumulation of
water on the bus steps and that it knew or should have known about this
condition. The Plaintiff has not
factually established the source of water, how long it was present, or whether
SAUK TRAILS contributed to the water accumulation. There has further been no showing by the
Plaintiff what the effect the water had on her fall.
Simply because SAUK TRAILS bus
aisle-ways or stairs became wet does not mean SAUK TRAILS breached its duty to
PATRICIA CORCORAN. It is not enough for
PATRICIA CORCORAN to allege she fell on Defendant’s wet floor or stairs. The Plaintiff must go further and factually
establish that water made the steps slippery or hazardous, and that this
condition was caused by the Defendant.
Here, the Plaintiff has simply not established any causal condition
between the wet steps and her fall.
WHEREFORE, as there is no triable
issue of fact sustaining the allegations contained in Count II of Plaintiff’s
Complaint at Law, the Defendant, SAUK TRAILS, respectfully requests this
Honorable Court enter a summary judgement in its favor and against the
Plaintiff, PATRICIA CORCORAN.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Lowell
D. Snorf, III
Attorney
for the Defendant
SAUK
TRAILS, INC.
Lowell
D. Snorf, III
LAW
OFFICES OF LOWELL D. SNORF, III
77 West
Washington Street, Suite 703
Chicago,
Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-8961
Att.
No.: 71148