Milevski v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital
123 N.E.3d 449
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Jan. 20, 2015, Tome Milevski (Siemens telecom analyst) fell and was injured while stepping off a raised cable-management floor panel in Ingalls Memorial Hospital’s telecom room. Plaintiffs sued Ingalls for negligence; Siemens was later impleaded but is not part of this appeal.
- The raised floor system had existed for decades; Ingalls employees testified Ingalls did not maintain or routinely inspect the raised floor and that contractors (Siemens and others) accessed or serviced it.
- Plaintiff and several contractors testified they had used the raised floor; plaintiff noticed broken plastic pieces only after his fall and could not say when they broke; no one reported prior complaints or accidents involving the floor.
- Ingalls submitted affidavits and deposition testimony showing no records or reports of prior incidents or repair requests relating to the raised floor and that Ingalls lacked actual or constructive notice of any defect.
- The trial court granted Ingalls’ motion for summary judgment (plaintiff did not initially respond), concluding there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice nor of causation attributable to Ingalls; plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was denied. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ingalls had notice (actual or constructive) of the defective raised floor | Milevski argued defective condition would have been discoverable by inspection and Ingalls, as owner/controller of the premises, had the duty to keep workplace safe; reliance on Donoho to avoid notice requirement | Ingalls argued there was no evidence of prior complaints, reports, repairs, or any temporal evidence showing the defect existed long enough to give constructive notice; no actual notice | Court held no actual or constructive notice; summary judgment for Ingalls affirmed |
| Whether Donoho rule (no notice required where condition related to proprietor’s business) applies | Milevski invoked Donoho to contend notice was unnecessary because the flooring was Ingalls’ property and related to its business | Ingalls and court argued Donoho typically applies to foreign substances or conditions created by proprietor/servants; here no evidence Ingalls created the defect | Court held Donoho inapplicable because plaintiff presented no evidence the proprietor or its servants caused the condition |
| Whether a duty existed to inspect and protect plaintiff despite contractual arrangements with Siemens | Milevski argued overlapping responsibilities left plaintiff unprotected and that Ingalls’ control/ownership imposed inspection duties | Ingalls pointed to evidence that contractors maintained the telecom system and Ingalls had no notice or record of issues | Court noted duty may exist but ruled case on lack of notice; did not need to decide duty/inspection allocation further |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Milevski argued factual disputes precluded summary judgment (timing of defect, discoverability) | Ingalls argued absence of evidence on notice or causation warranted judgment as a matter of law | Court applied summary-judgment standard and found plaintiff’s speculation insufficient; affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Ins. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (Illinois 2004) (summary-judgment evidence must be viewed in favor of nonmovant)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (Illinois 1992) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant may show absence of evidence to support nonmovant’s case)
- Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc., 309 Ill. App. 3d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Donoho v. O’Connell’s, Inc., 13 Ill. 2d 113 (Illinois 1958) (where a condition is related to proprietor’s operations, slight circumstantial evidence can allow liability without separate proof of notice)
- Tomczak v. Planetsphere, Inc., 315 Ill. App. 3d 1033 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (time the hazard existed is material to constructive-notice analysis)