Caburnay v. Norwegian American Hosp.
963 N.E.2d 1021
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Caburnay, an anesthesiologist, tripped and fell in Norwegian American Hospital lobby while waiting for an elevator, injuring his neck and becoming quadriplegic.
- A rubber/fabric mat was placed in front of both elevators for floor protection; the mat had been used for about six months.
- One elevator was under Phoenix Elevator Concepts' service; Norwegian planned to use a third-party mat supplier later.
- Caburnay sued Norwegian and Phoenix for negligence; he later settled with Phoenix; Norwegian moved for summary judgment and prevailed.
- Caburnay alleged Norwegian failed to inspect, secure, and maintain the mat and alleged spoliation for failure to preserve the mat.
- Norwegian produced a mat after discovery (the original was lost/destroyed); the record showed the mat could buckle and that edges were taped in the past.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fold/buckle in the mat created a genuine fact issue on negligence | Caburnay claims mat buckling caused fall; evidence shows he felt his foot catch on a fold. | Norwegian argues no pre-incident fold; deposition shows uncertain causation; no genuine issue. | Issue of material fact exists; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Norwegian had a duty to preserve the mat for spoliation | Norwegian's failure to preserve the mat deprived Caburnay of evidence necessary for trial. | No established duty to preserve; no loss of probative value shown; mat not essential to proving fold. | Summary judgment proper on spoliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 261 Ill.App.3d 1068 (1994) (pleader's inability to identify cause of fall undermines negligence claim)
- Brett v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 8 Ill.App.3d 334 (1972) (claimant must identify cause of fall; mere speculation insufficient)
- Koukoulomatis v. Disco Wheels, Inc., 127 Ill.App.3d 95 (1984) (speculative assertions cannot support negligence without showing cause)
- Wind v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 272 Ill.App.3d 149 (1995) (dangerous mat not secured can create negligence if poorly maintained)
- Robinson v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 26 Ill.App.2d 139 (1960) (ordinary use of a safe mat is not negligent; defective/untaped mat may be negligent)
- Deibert v. Bauer Brothers Construction Co., 141 Ill.2d 430 (1990) (premises liability requires actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous condition)
- Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill.2d 456 (1976) (premises liability duty and notice considerations in tort)
- Dardeen v. Kuehling, 213 Ill.2d 329 (2004) (two-pronged test for duty to preserve evidence)
- Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 166 Ill.2d 188 (1995) (duty to preserve evidence requires foreseeability of material relevance)
- Newsom-Bogan v. Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 092860 (2011) (evidence of defective mat placement may support negligence theory)