Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority
Decision Date | 21 May 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 1-08-0377.,1-08-0377. |
Citation | 391 Ill. App. 3d 663,909 N.E.2d 887 |
Parties | Marianna KRYWIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Eugene Munin, Chicago Transit Authority Acting General Counsel (Eugene Munin, Kent S. Ray, Stephen L. Wood, of counsel), Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gordon & Centrachio, LLC (Lawrence G. Gordon, Joseph G. Ryan, of counsel), Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant, Chicago Transit Authority (the CTA), appeals the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Marianna Krywin, on her complaint for negligence and wilful and wanton conduct. The primary issue on appeal is whether the CTA breached its duty to provide plaintiff with a safe place to alight when it stopped its train in front of a natural accumulation of snow and ice, upon which plaintiff fell as she was exiting the train. We reverse.
At trial, Darren Hill testified that he has been a security controller with the CTA for 16 years. His job is to take calls from CTA personnel regarding accidents, injuries and defective equipment and make written reports thereof. On January 13, 2005, he received a call from CTA customer service agent Theresa Williams regarding plaintiffs fall on the southbound Sheridan Road platform of the CTA's Red Line train. Mr. Hill recorded the following information in a document entitled "Unusual Occurrence Report":
Anthony Morales testified that he has been a rail maintenance worker at the CTA for 15 years. His duties include removing snow and ice from the elevated platforms, and then spreading sand on the platforms once the snow and ice were removed. In January 2005, he was assigned to the Sheridan Road and Addison Street stations of the CTA's Red Line train. There is a small canopy covering less than half of the southbound Sheridan Road platform. Mr. Morales testified that he does not remember removing any snow or ice from the southbound Sheridan Road platform on January 11, 12 or 13, of 2005.
Ruben Bonner testified that he has been a rapid transit operator since 1998. At approximately 9:50 a.m. on January 13, 2005, he operated a southbound train that entered the Sheridan Road station. After the train's doors opened, he noticed the plaintiff on the platform on her hands and knees near the rear of the train. Mr. Bonner testified that the area on the platform where the plaintiff fell was icy.
Patricia Majors testified that in January 2005, she was a senior at DePaul University who used the CTA's Red Line train multiple times a day, each time entering at the southbound Sheridan Road platform. At approximately 10 a.m. on January 13, 2005, Ms. Majors was on the southbound Sheridan Road platform, which she described as being "very icy." The train approached and the doors opened. Ms. Majors testified that she saw plaintiff step off the train and fall on the ice. Ms. Majors further testified in pertinent part:
"Q. But it was icy on the platform; is that correct?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. All right. Was there slush under the ice, or was the ice directly on top of the train platform?
A. Only ice on the platform.
Q. And that was directly on top of the wood platform?
A. Correct.
Q. And how big of an area was covered with ice on the Sheridan Road southbound train platform, on [the day of the accident, and the two preceding days]?
A. All of it, except what was covered by the canopy, the small canopy.
Q. You didn't see anyone spread sand or salt on the platform on any of those three days?
A. I did not.
* * *
Q. Was the vicinity in which Marianna was stepping off of the train, was that area, the immediate area surrounding the door at which she was coming out, was it covered by ice?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was there any room for her to step around the ice in that area?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any sand on that platform in-between the ice and the platform?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see any sand on top of the ice?
A. No, I did not."
Plaintiff testified that she was born in Poland and had lived in Chicago for 22 years. At the time of trial, she was 76 years old. On January 13, 2005, plaintiff exited her home on Paulina and went to the train station at Howard. She entered the southbound train to Sheridan. Plaintiff testified that upon exiting the train at the Sheridan platform, she "put one of [her] legs down and then the other one and then there was snow and slippery and [she] went backwards." Plaintiff further testified that she "made one step with [her] right leg and [she] stepped into the snow and then [she] stepped with [her] left leg and then * * * [she] had fallen backwards and then [she] was screaming from pain." Plaintiff stated she fell onto the platform and that the "snow was not clean whatsoever of the platform."
Plaintiff testified that paramedics came to the scene, put her on a stretcher, and transported her to the emergency room. Eventually, she was transferred to Lincoln Park Hospital, where she underwent surgery on her left leg. Plaintiff testified to her pain and suffering as well as her disability and scarring.
Doctor Daniel Ivankovich testified that he is an orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the plaintiff at the emergency room of Thorek Hospital on January 13, 2005. Plaintiff related to Doctor Ivankovich that she had slipped and fallen on ice. Doctor Ivankovich diagnosed her with a pilon fracture of her left tibia that also included her left fibula. Doctor Ivankovich testified that the pilon fracture
Doctor Ivankovich performed surgery on plaintiff on January 20, 2005. Plaintiff was hospitalized continuously from January 13, 2005, until February 10, 2005. Doctor Ivankovich testified that the injury plaintiff sustained was the direct result of her fall on January 13, 2005.
Following all the evidence, the case proceeded to the jury on two counts of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Under count I, the sole issue submitted to the jury was plaintiff's claim that the CTA was negligent for failing to provide a safe place to alight from the train. Under count II, the sole issue submitted to the jury was plaintiff's claim that the CTA's failure to provide a safe place to alight from the train was wilful and wanton.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the CTA in the amount of S372,141. The CTA filed this timely appeal following the denial of its posttrial motions.
On appeal, the CTA contends the trial court erred by denying its motion for a directed verdict. A motion for a directed verdict is properly granted when "all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors [the] movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand." Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co. 37 Ill.2d 494, 510, 229 N.E.2d 504 (1967). Review is de novo. Lisowski v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital Ass'n, 381 Ill.App.3d 275, 289, 319 Ill.Dec. 440, 885 N.E.2d 1120 (2008).
The CTA contends the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor on plaintiff's negligence and wilful and wanton claims because the plaintiff failed to prove that it owed her any duty to remove the natural accumulation of snow and ice on its platform. In both an action for negligence and an action for wilful and wanton misconduct, the plaintiff must establish an existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach. See Serritos v. Chicago Transit Authority, 153 Ill.App.3d 265, 268-69, 106 Ill.Dec. 243, 505 N.E.2d 1034 (1987); Wade v. City of Chicago, 364 Ill.App.3d 773, 781, 301 Ill.Dec. 621, 847 N.E.2d 631 (2006).
A common carrier owes a duty to its passengers to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its conveyances. Sheffer v. Springfield Airport Authority, 261 Ill. App.3d 151, 154, 198 Ill.Dec. 458, 632 N.E.2d 1069 (1994). This duty arises Sheffer, 261 Ill. App.3d at 154, 198 Ill.Dec. 458, 632 N.E.2d 1069.
In the present case, the CTA drove its train into a station and discharged its passenger, the plaintiff, onto a platform covered in a natural accumulation of snow and ice upon which she fell. The issue is whether, in so doing, the CTA breached its duty to provide plaintiff with the opportunity to safely alight from the train and reach a place of safety.
The appellate court has addressed similar issues in Serritos, 153 Ill.App.3d 265, 106 Ill.Dec. 243, 505 N.E.2d 1034, Shoemaker v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 187 Ill.App.3d 1040, 135 Ill.Dec. 446, 543 N.E.2d 1014 (1989), and Sheffer, 261 Ill.App.3d 151, 198 Ill.Dec. 458, 632 N.E.2d 1069.
In Serritos, Mary Serritos filed suit against the CTA alleging that she was injured when she slipped and fell on the icy and snow-covered steps of a CTA bus. Serritos, 153 Ill.App.3d at 266, 106 Ill.Dec. 243, 505 N.E.2d 1034. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the CTA, finding that the CTA had no duty to remove the snow or slush from the steps of its buses or to warn its passengers of that condition. Serritos, 153 Ill.App.3d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krywin v. Chicago Transit Auth.
...platform at Sheridan Road in Chicago. A jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The appellate court reversed. 391 Ill.App.3d 663, 330 Ill.Dec. 865, 909 N.E.2d 887.BACKGROUND Count I of plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that on January 13, 2005, she was riding the CTA's red line tr......
-
Anderson v. Chi. Transit Auth.
...carrier is about to transport or is in the process of actively transporting a passenger. See Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority , 391 Ill. App. 3d 663, 668, 330 Ill.Dec. 865, 909 N.E.2d 887 (2009), aff'd , 238 Ill. 2d 215, 345 Ill.Dec. 1, 938 N.E.2d 440 (2010) ("passengers must wholly rely......
-
Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. 5 Bd., Directors
...existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach. Krywin v. Chi. Transit Auth., 391 Ill.App.3d 663, 330 Ill.Dec. 865, 909 N.E.2d 887, 890 (2009). A willful and wanton claim has the additional requirement that the breach be not merely negligent, b......
-
Zirko v. Ghosh
...Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 593 F.3d 507, 514 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Krywin v. Chi. Trans. Auth., 391 Ill. App. 3d 663, 909 N.E.2d 887, 890 (Ill. App. 2009)). "A willful and wanton claim has the additional requirement that the breach be not merely negligent, b......