Avila v. Chi. Transit Auth.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-19-0636 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 190636,187 N.E.3d 136,453 Ill.Dec. 162 |
| Parties | Martha AVILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Peter V. Bustamante and Claudia E. Sainsot, of Chicago, for appellant.
Karen G. Seimetz, Stephen L. Wood, and Irina Y. Dimitrieva, of Chicago Transit Authority, of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 On the morning of December 24, 2009, plaintiff, Martha Avila, sustained significant injuries after falling down a staircase at the Randolph/Wabash elevated, or "L," station, which is owned by defendant, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). Following a trial in 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the CTA and against plaintiff. Plaintiff now appeals, asserting numerous errors by the trial court. For the following reasons, we vacate part of the costs awarded to the CTA but affirm the judgment in all other respects.
¶ 4 Plaintiff filed her original suit in this controversy on June 1, 2010, alleging that the CTA was liable for her injuries because the staircase on which she fell (1) lacked an anti-skid surface where the landing met the top step and (2) had handrails that extended only to the top step rather than continuing over the landing. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in August 2015. She then refiled suit on April 7, 2016, with a complaint substantively identical to the one from 2010.
¶ 5 On May 4, 2018, plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint stylized plaintiff's allegations as one count of premises liability based on the highest degree of care (count I), one count of premises liability based on an ordinary level of care (count II), one count of negligence based on the highest degree of care (count III), and one count of negligence based on an ordinary level of care (count IV). For all counts, plaintiff asserted that the CTA was liable for her fall and injuries because it, among other things, "[c]hose to allow the [landing] to remain without an anti-skid surface," and "[c]hose not to have the handrails extend to the [landing] *** within easy reach of anyone walking down the staircase." The amended complaint also alleged that the CTA "[c]hose not to provide the [landing] with an anti-skid surface, although it had undertaken to provide anti-skid surfaces to all other [landings] of the staircases at the Randolph and Wabash station."
¶ 7 The CTA filed a motion to dismiss counts I and III of the amended complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016) ), arguing that it did not owe plaintiff the highest degree of care because "Illinois courts have long held that the duty of a carrier to provide reasonably safe depots, platforms and approaches for the use of passengers who are at the exiting and at the end of their journey requires the exercise of only ordinary care." The CTA also moved to strike from the amended complaint paragraph 16, which alleged that CTA employee Dwayne Morgan witnessed another passenger fall from the top of the same staircase approximately one hour before plaintiff. Lastly, the CTA moved to strike from the amended complaint numerous other paragraphs pertaining to the condition of other staircases at the Randolph/Wabash station. The CTA contended that these paragraphs—which alleged that the landings of two other staircases were equipped with anti-skid plates—were not relevant to the issue of whether the staircase on which plaintiff fell was reasonably safe.
¶ 8 After a hearing, the court issued an order dismissing counts I and III, stating that this was "not a highest duty of care case" because plaintiff had already exited the train and "reached a point of safety." The court also granted the CTA's motion to strike the paragraphs concerning the prior fall and the other staircases at the station.
¶ 10 On September 4, 2018, the trial court ruled on the parties’ various motions in limine. Over the CTA's objection, the court granted plaintiff's motion to bar evidence that there were no other slip-and-fall claims involving the relevant staircase in the year preceding plaintiff's fall. In so ruling, the court explained that it was "going to try and keep this trial focused on the date, time, and occurrence in question." Applying the same logic, the court also barred evidence concerning the condition of the other staircases at the Randolph/Wabash station, stating that whether the CTA "did it right other times" was irrelevant to whether the particular staircase in question was in a reasonably safe condition at the time of plaintiff's fall.
¶ 11 The CTA also moved to bar evidence that Morgan witnessed the unknown male passenger fall on the same staircase approximately one hour before plaintiff. The court granted the motion, opining that "[n]othing in the proffer made by the Plaintiff relates to anything other than the slippery condition," which the CTA removed from evidence by admitting that the staircase was slippery with ice and snow on the morning in question.
¶ 12 The CTA further moved to exclude testimony from Robert Fahlstrom, a manager for the Chicago Department of Buildings, who would have testified that the CTA was required to comply with the Chicago Building Code (building code) when repairing its facilities. Before ruling on the motion, the court asked plaintiff's counsel whether "this generalized testimony will be necessary" in light of the CTA's concession that the building code was applicable. Plaintiff's counsel agreed that Fahlstrom's testimony was no longer necessary, and the court granted the CTA's motion to exclude it.
¶ 13 Finally, the trial court barred, as an inadmissible subsequent remedial measure, evidence that CTA employees temporarily closed the staircase after plaintiff's fall.
¶ 15 On September 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint re-pled the allegations and counts previously stricken by the court and added new allegations that the CTA was negligent in (1) inadequately removing ice from the staircase and (2) failing to close the staircase prior to her fall. The proposed amendment would have also alleged that, while other staircases at the station featured "round, tubular-style handrails," the staircase on which plaintiff fell merely had "railings" that "did not extend to the [landing] and were not within easy reach of a person standing on that [landing]."
¶ 16 The trial court denied leave, opining that "the case law is clear against allowing the amendment," particularly in light of the prejudice that the CTA would suffer if plaintiff were allowed to add facts on the eve of trial that were not pled in any previous complaint.
¶ 18 The following relevant facts were adduced at trial.
¶ 19 Plaintiff testified that, on the morning of December 24, 2009, she got off the train at the Randolph/Washington station on her way to work. At the time, she was approximately 5’1," 220 pounds, and six months pregnant. As plaintiff exited the train just before 7 a.m., she observed "patches of ice and water everywhere." She took "baby steps" down a first set of stairs leading to an intermediate level and then walked across the mezzanine towards the staircase to street level located in the northeast corner of the station. Plaintiff testified that she always used this staircase on the way to work so that she would not have to cross the street at street level.
¶ 20 Upon arriving at the top of the northeast staircase, plaintiff saw a CTA employee chopping ice with a shovel on the stairs below. She asked the employee for help, but he "completely ignored" her. Plaintiff testified that there was no anti-skid surface at the top of the landing and no round handrails. She tried to grab the flat railing that extended to the top step, but it was too wide to put her hand around. She "went with [her] right leg and [she] slipped" onto her back before her right foot made contact with the top step. She fell down approximately 15 steps to the middle of the staircase.
¶ 21 Dwayne Morgan testified that he was on duty as a CTA customer assistant on the morning of December 24, 2009. When he arrived at the station around 5:45 a.m., it was approximately 20 degrees and there was an "ice storm." He ascended the northeast staircase, which was "completely covered in ice." At approximately 6 a.m., Morgan notified control and maintenance about the weather conditions. He then used a pointed shovel to break up some of the ice on top of the landing, but he was unable to clear all of it. Morgan also used the shovel to break up ice on the bottom two stairs and was working on the third when he stopped to allow some newly-arrived passengers to come down.
¶ 22 Morgan testified that he saw plaintiff at the top landing, but she did not ask for his help. Plaintiff grabbed the railing to her right with both hands and put one of her feet on the top step. Then, "her leg gave way and she slid down about seven steps." Plaintiff did not let go of the railing until after she stopped falling. Morgan radioed the incident to control, and an ambulance arrived to take plaintiff to the hospital.
¶ 23 Gerald Brin, plaintiff's architectural expert, testified that the CTA was required to comply with the Chicago Building Code when repairing or replacing an existing staircase. Brin opined that the staircase on which plaintiff fell did not comply with the building code in at least two respects: (1) the top of the landing did not have an anti-skid surface and (2) "there were no handrails." Brin stated that a Wooster plate, which is a metal plate with "little grits" on it, is an appropriate anti-skid surface. Although the steps of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial