Devine v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-05038 |
| Parties | KIMBERLY DEVINE, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, A Corporation, AMTRAK, A Corporation, CHICAGO UNION STATION COMPANY, A Corporation, TOTAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE, INC., A Corporation, and SCRUB, INC., A Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kimberly Devine sues Defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Chicago Union Station Company (CUSCo), Total Facilities Maintenance, Inc. (TFM), and Scrub, Inc. for negligence after tripping on a mat while exiting Chicago's Union Station. Defendants now move for summary judgment. [48]; [52]; [62]. For the reasons explained below, this Court grants in part and denies in part Amtrak and CUSCo's motion, [48], and denies TFM's and Scrub's motions, [52] [62].
Devine serves as a legal assistant at a law firm in downtown Chicago. [80-1] at 3. For that reason, she regularly commutes downtown for work. [80-1] at 4-5. On the morning of September 12, 2016, Devine walked through Union Station toward the Adams Street/River exit (Adams Street exit) on her way to work. [50] ¶ 1. Devine used the Adams Street exit every day. Id. ¶ 9. Although bustling during the morning rush hour, Devine did not consider the area unusually busy that day. [80-1] at 5. Furthermore, she experienced no issues with the lighting, and it was not raining. Id.
The Adams Street exit features two escalators and a staircase leading to a 15-to-20-foot mat, adjacent to a set of five doors exiting the Station. [50] ¶ 8. As commuters moved through the area, a portion of the mat became caught in the doorway and slightly cinched as a result. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. From 8:15 a.m. to 8:24 a.m., 321 people used the far-right door of the exit without issue; all commuters avoided the mat's raised portion successfully. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. At 8:24 a.m., the mat became more significantly raised, yet 26 more commuters safely passed through the far-right door, avoiding the obstruction. Id. ¶ 17.
Devine approached the set of doors and chose the far-right door—her everyday exit. Id. ¶ 9. She experienced no prior issues walking across the mat at this door, nor did she ever notice problems with the mat itself. [64] ¶ 3. As she continued toward the exit, a gentleman ahead of Devine stepped over the mat and exited the door, holding it open behind him. [50] ¶ 21. As they walked toward the exit, the gentleman remained two to three feet in front of Devine; nothing else obstructed her view. [80-1] at 5.
At 8:26 a.m., Devine tripped on the raised mat and fell to the ground with her arm extended; she did not see the mat before falling. [50] ¶¶ 18, 22-23. Atapproximately 8:26 a.m., Amtrak Police Officer Christopher Schabert responded to Devine's fall. [50] ¶ 24; [50-9] at 9. At the time, Devine reported pain in both knees as well as numbness and lack of strength in her right arm. Id. Schabert testified that he has heard of no previous incidents from a cinched mat at the Adams Street exit. [50-9] at 14.
Devine testified that her fall resulted in an injured rotator cuff requiring surgery. [80-1] at 11, 24. She missed a day and a half of work immediately following her injury, then remained on leave from December 9, 2016 until March 3, 2017 for surgery and rehab. Id. at 4. Devine testified that she has not regained her full range of motion and possesses limited ability to pull files and type for extended periods of time. Id. at 12-13.
The United States constitutes the majority owner of Amtrak. [50] ¶ 2.1 CUSCo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Amtrak, holds legal title to Chicago Union Station. Id. ¶ 3; [87] ¶ 39. Non-party CBRE, Inc. served as CUSCo's property manager and facilitated contracts for maintenance and custodial services in Union Station. [50] ¶ 4.
Scrub and TFM provided custodial services during the day and evening at Union Station. [50] ¶¶ 5-6; [50-5] at 1, 7. Pursuant to a service agreement(Agreement) with CUSCo's property manager, CBRE, Inc., TFM and Scrub's duties broadly included responsibility for "providing all janitorial and appearance care services of [Union Station], except those activities and areas assigned to AMTRAK/CUSCO staff." [50-5] at 16. Scrub and TFM also agreed to "take all reasonable and prudent precautions to prevent any damage to property, personal injury, or death to persons [from any] equipment, tools, scaffolding, materials, or other property or from acts of" Scrub and TFM. Id. at 3. The Agreement further required Scrub and TFM to use "special care and planning" to keep the area "clean and maintained at all times," and to maintain "development of cleaning quality standards, methods, procedures, schedules and practices . . . to ensure safe, consistent work practices and quality." Id. at 16.
Scrub employees directly supervised all TFM janitors. [53] ¶ 4. Welbon Morris served as the Scrub supervisor at the time Devine fell, [80-2] at 4, and Yuliana Cordoba and Felix Juarez, both TFM employees, were assigned to the Adams Street exit that day, [79] ¶ 43.
Juarez stated that he and his co-worker typically inspect the exit area around 6:20 a.m., then again around 9:20 a.m., after the rush hour crowd subsides. [50-10] at 6. Juarez testified that, during rush hour, the exit "is impossible [to inspect], because it is packed with people." Id. Scrub supervisor Morris confirmed that if he wanted TFM employees to check the area more often, he could have ordered them to do so; TFM itself had no discretion on where to assign its workers. [53] ¶ 12. Although Morris never gave any specific instructions about the mats, formerassistant Scrub manager Joel Delgado testified that TFM janitors possessed no authority to lift or look underneath them. Id. ¶ 11; [76-3] at 25. Juarez also testified that if something was wrong with a mat, TFM "isn't supposed fix it," and that rather, TFM employees would call Scrub for direction about what to do. [50-10] at 12. Juarez, a TFM janitor at Union Station for 16 years at the time of incident, testified he never heard of the mat in question move or cinch. Id. at 3, 8.
Scrub similarly maintains it never knew of prior issues with the Adams Street exit mat cinching. [64] ¶ 6. Morris testified, for instance, that he could not recall any previous cinching at the Adams Street exit during his 26-year tenure working at Union Station. Id. at 3, 22. Delgado recalled that other mats previously cinched on occasion, but similarly testified there "was never an issue" with cinching at the Adams Street exit. [50-7] at 12. Moreover, Delgado testified that although Scrub maintained responsibility for cleaning mats, Scrub employees did not possess the authority to decide whether to tape the Adams Street mat down. [76-3] at 25. Delgado further testified that CBRE directed Scrub as to which mats to tape. Id. at 13.
Finally, Morris also testified that he did not need permission from CBRE to straighten out a mat. [50-11] at 14. And Delgado further testified that anyone "on the floor at any time," including Scrub and TFM employees, bore responsibility to fix any "potential hazard," such as fixing a buckling mat. [50-7] at 22.
Summary judgment is proper where there is "no dispute as to any material factand the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, this Court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. King v. Hendricks Cty. Comm'rs, 954 F.3d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 2020). The non-moving party bears the burden of identifying the evidence creating an issue of fact. Hutchison v. Fitzgerald Equip. Co., Inc., 910 F.3d 1016, 1021-22 (7th Cir. 2018). To satisfy that burden, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Barnes v. City of Centralia, Illinois, 943 F.3d 826, 832 (7th Cir. 2019). Thus, a mere "scintilla of evidence" supporting the non-movant's position does not suffice; instead "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find" for the non-moving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
Devine alleges negligence under both a premises liability theory and ordinary negligence against Amtrak (Count I) and CUSCo (Count II), and ordinary negligence against TFM (Count III) and Scrub (Count IV). [20] at 1-7.
Under Illinois law, a plaintiff claiming ordinary negligence must prove the following three elements: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff experienced injuries as a proximate cause of that breach. Doe v. Coe, 135 N.E.3d 1, 15 (Ill. 2019).2
To establish premises liability, plaintiff must prove an additional three elements: (1) a condition on the property presented an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the condition and the risk; and (3) the defendant could reasonably have expected that people on the property would not realize, would not discover, or would fail to protect themselves from the danger. Garcia v. Goetz, 121 N.E.3d 950, 958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018); Rosales v. Menard, Inc., No. 17 C 1131, 2018 WL 2299232, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2018).
In Counts I and II, Devine alleges that Defendants Amtrak and CUSCo breached their...
To continue reading
Request your trial