Haslett v. United Skates of America, Inc.
136 N.E.3d 172
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On July 13, 2015, Haslett, an experienced skater, fell at a roller rink operated by United Skates/Chicago City Skating; she later alleged the fall was caused by rolling over a piece of hard candy and sued for negligence.
- Haslett filed multiple amended complaints; discovery included depositions of Haslett, family members, rink employees, the assistant manager Torrence, the general manager Taylor, and floor guard Barnett, and production of seven surveillance video clips.
- No witness testified to seeing candy on the rink floor before or after the fall; Haslett did not inspect her personal skates until days later and claimed she later found red crumbled candy on the front wheels.
- Rink employees testified the floor was swept before the session, floor guards were tasked to monitor and remove debris, food was prohibited on the floor, and the rink did not sell hard candy; Taylor compiled seven video clips but acknowledged one camera nearest the fall was broken and that footage immediately preceding the fall was not included.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) absence of evidence of any hazardous object, lack of actual or constructive notice, and lack of causation; the trial court granted summary judgment and denied further amendment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of hazardous condition / causation | Haslett: she felt "roll over something" and later found candy on her skates, so candy caused the fall | Defendants: no one saw candy; Haslett’s post-hoc observation is speculative and not tied to time/place of fall | Held: No evidence of hazard at time/place; circumstantial evidence (skate inspection days later) is insufficient to prove existence or causation |
| Notice (actual or constructive) | Haslett: defendants failed to properly monitor floor and thus had notice or should be charged with constructive notice | Defendants: no evidence employees saw candy; floor swept before session; food prohibited; no indication hazard existed long enough for constructive notice | Held: No actual notice; no proof candy was present sufficiently long for constructive notice; summary judgment proper |
| Adverse inference for missing/limited video footage | Haslett: defendants failed to produce full-day surveillance; missing footage (minutes before fall) could show cause; court should draw adverse inference | Defendants: produced seven relevant videos; general manager explained camera nearest fall was broken; plaintiff never moved to compel additional footage during discovery | Held: No basis for adverse inference; no showing defendants withheld footage without reasonable excuse; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Denial of leave to amend complaint | Haslett: proposed amendment was timely, related to same occurrence, added specificity and would not prejudice defendants | Defendants: (implicit) amendment would not cure lack of evidence as to hazard/notice/causation | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion denying further amendment because plaintiff could not establish existence, notice, or proximate causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavlik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 323 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (explaining grounds for proprietor liability for foreign objects)
- Barker v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 261 Ill. App. 3d 1068 (circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove existence of hazardous condition at time/place of fall)
- Kimbrough v. Jewel Cos., 92 Ill. App. 3d 813 (insufficient proof that hazardous condition caused fall despite plaintiff seeing spots)
- Olinger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 21 Ill. 2d 469 (premises liability principles regarding proprietor notice)
- Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill. 2d 456 (adoption of Restatement § 343 in Illinois premises liability law)
- Hayes v. Bailey, 80 Ill. App. 3d 1027 (constructive notice requires hazard present long enough for proprietor to discover)
- Kellman v. Twin Orchard Country Club, 202 Ill. App. 3d 968 (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Palumbo v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 182 Ill. App. 3d 283 (no recovery where no eyewitness or post-incident evidence of foreign substance on floor)