*1 another to intention to cause An intent to defraud means an (b) transfer, obliga- assume, create, any right, alter terminate or or any property. or with reference to power person another in- defrauding A document (c) apparently capable cludes, to, right, obliga- is not limited may or or person property tion with reference to any power created, transferred, or altered terminated. fined shaH be not Penalty. forgery convicted (d) person exceed one to in the from imprisoned penitentiary or both.” years, a misdemeanor conclude This offense was law. I therefore under Illinois as I that Dr. Bruni was convicted of a have construed “felony” not term for Medical Practice Act. The purposes of Section 16a(2) unlawful, revocation of his I would license provision affirm the Circuit Court that effect. F. W. Woolworth Brett, Company,

Helen Defendant-Appellee.

First District —October denied November Supplemental December opinion filed *2 McIntosh, Gann, Stead & of Chicago, O’Shaughnessy, (Donald J. Parker, of for counsel,) appellant.

Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Masters, Chaffetz & of Chicago, (Donald J. Elden, and Duffy M. Gary counsel,) appellee. SCHWARTZ delivered the opinion

Plaintiff seeks to recover for sustained injuries when she tripped fell Street, in defendant’s store at 221 South State in Chicago. The case was tried a and a by jury verdict of The trial court returned. entered a judgment for defendant verdict, notwithstanding and also entered an order granting conditional trial new to pursuant Ill. Rev. Stat. par. 68.1(6), ch. provides that the court must rule conditionally on other requested post-trial relief in the un event its conditional ruling portion of such requested relief held erroneous. to proceed consider whether the facts and the law support the judg ment.

The accident occurred 5, 1968, on July at which time the plaintiff was 71 years old. She entered the store at the north entrance which had two sets of steel-framed glass One set was flush doors. with the sidewalk and the other set into opened the store. The floor just inside the inner doors was covered three by 4x8 foot rugs approximately one-half thick, inch with rubber backing It is edging. undisputed the rugs were in excellent condition. They were laid side side and butted together, covering space running eight feet back into the store. then turned rugs, she east on the walked store, contact careful to avoid being

south to into the south end of the go off right, step with people leaving turning trying store. foot, causing with her left rug right around to see her to fall forward. She was then unable to move or look Two what had to the actual fall. her. There were no witnesses tripped store had gone Leuzzi and employees, Campanella, James were assistance after called witnesses. plaintiff’s floor, Leuzzi testified that with the face down on lower half of her at the south end of the entrance. effect, In a to the same pre-trial deposition testified Campanella when called as a he her lying witness he testified that found by plaintiff off the completely rug. investigator employed private that when he examined the after the accident plaintiff, he found where the butted together were shoe, “readily felt his through when the sole across from one spanned carpet other.” The offered no it was error for the trial court to take the issues of Plaintiff urges also cause from the on her to a trial infringed right jury the trial court constitutional trial based on a of the evi- it awarded conditional new standard, rather than the weight dence manifest thereof. *3 Co., 494, &

The case of Pedrick v. Peoria Eastern R.R. 37 Ill.2d established that directed verdicts and notwithstanding the judgments evidence, entered if all the when viewed in its verdict will be aspect most favorable to the favors the movant opponent, overwhelmingly no that verdict based on that evidence could ever On contrary stand. hand, the other the must establish of the plaintiff evidence that and that defendant was such was the negligent negligence injury. Chicago Co., cause & of the Title v. Trust McInturff Ill.App.2d is that the of the created an butting together rugs

Plaintiff’s theory the that it unreasonably depression along joined edges; dangerous fall; and that that caused sufficient evidence plaintiff depression the submission of the case to the While require was adduced to her she admitted caught plaintiff that she did not know what there was about the that caused fall. the No evidence was introduced that the showing depression existed at such The nearest evidence is the in- approach testimony time. of the stated who that he vestigator, the two inspected after the and found a weeks occurrence depression.

The mere use of a floor on an covering invitee falls is not evi- Co., 26 Bell Tel. Southwestern dence of negligence. (Robinson Co., 31 & Tea v. Atlantic cites River Ill.App.2d 139.) Plaintiff Pacific defects of 232, for the that evidence Ill.App.2d proposition positive that is slight introduced and some direct evidence—however —exists the one for defect, associates the issue becomes plaintiffs fall with that hus and her jury. The River the plaintiff case is not in since there point, band to fall. No such evidence actually saw the defect that caused her was presented in the case before us. addition to existed actually that the depression fall, shown unreasonably dangerous at the time it must also be of it

that was the intro proximate cause of the only injury. duced the store plaintiff on this case that of of the phase Leuzzi, employee, on the he found floor with the lower of her portion body rugs. that from the of her it reason proximity is alleged depression able to infer cause the fall was the alleged depression. Prather, said at 227:

In Celner v. the court page 301 Ill.App. be is cannot theory “Proof of a mere not sufficient. possibility evidence, said unless the facts to be established circumstantial related, are of it the con- such nature and so as to make said fact clusion that could be It cannot be reasonably drawn. inferred, can inconsistent fact when the existence of another be drawn can with equal certainty.” an While the in the instant case offers fall, is explanation conclusion which merely unsupported admission she did not see feel what By own caused fall. The evidence that her after the was in close body, is too an inference proximity alleged depression ambiguous which to causal connection. predicate Co.,

In Robinson v. Southwestern Bell the court Tel. mat, had before it the question of whether the a rubber placement of fell, her heel and constituted on the negligence shown, of the defendant. In part that no had been holding the court out that the pointed installed the mat for the on his purpose improving safety and that and mats were premises used for this widely while thousands of tread them purpose; people it safely, for someone to possible over almost no matter anything, trip how common its the case *4 use. In before us the is a woman of case, advanced age, the circumstances of this assign another over as the cause of her falling would be sheer specula- tion. The trial court entered for the properly judgment defendant.

We need not consider the raised with question respect standard should be granted, new trial be used in whether a determining concerned, our moot, far as this court issue has been rendered n.o.v. affirmance of affirmed.

Judgment STAMOS, LEIGHTON, J., P. concur. J.,

OPINION ON REHEARING SCHWARTZ delivered opinion filed petition to our decision in this Subsequent appeal, plaintiff examined the brief which carefully accompanied have rehearing. State Darling Corp., and find the case of Holsman v. Street petition This to be the new matter to before court. put briefs, case, in on its facts distinguishable not cited plaintiff’s prior There, direct from the instant case. introduced fell was in a deteriorated con stairway cáse, the a dangerous the instant record does not reveal that dition. In existed at the time and place condition occurrence. denied. rehearing

Petition for LEIGHTON, STAMOS, P. concur. J., J., Candy Company v. Curtiss Mars, Incorporated, al., et Defendants-Appellees.

First District —November denied November