Rosa Galvan v. City of Chicago
Feb 23, 2012OUTCOME: $49,435 for the Plaintiff
July 25, 2008, pltf exited her home at 2416 W. 59th Place around 12:30 pm to go shopping with her family. In front of her house, the City of Chicago was in the process of replacing the sidewalks. The C ... ity had excavated the old sidewalk and was beginning the process of grading the level for the installation of a new sidewalk; several City workers were nearby, laying wooden frames for the installation of the new sidewalk. In order to grade the sidewalk, City workers had to place a string that was level with the height of the pre-existing sidewalk to ensure the new sidewalk would be flat and even. Pltf contended that at night, when City workers were not present at the construction site, they would place barriers to prohibit people from walking through the construction area, but there were no barriers or signs to warn of the construction dangers when City workers were present at the site during the daytime. On July 25, the entire sidewalk had been removed (leaving only dirt) and the houses on either side of pltf's home had gated front lawns, so she had to walk over and through the excavated sidewalk in order to get to her car parked on the street. However, in doing so, her right foot got caught on the string, causing her to fall. Pltf F-39 homemaker, who was carrying her 18-month-old child at the time, sustained a 1.5 centimeter tear to the peroneal brevis tendon in her right foot ($58,869 medl. bills). Pltf proceeded at trial under two theories: general negligence and premises liability. Pltf argued the City failed to adequately warn of the danger posed by the sidewalk construction because its workers removed the barriers/caution tape around the construction area every morning, they failed to place any signs or warnings in the neighborhood warning residents of the sidewalk construction, they failed to use a grading string that was easily visible and instead used string which was the same color as the wood boards at the site, and the presence of wood-colored string at ankle height was the proximate cause of pltf's fall and injury. The defense asserted the sidewalk construction condition was open and obvious, the City workers used a bright neon-colored construction string, the string was situated on the top inside corner of the wooden frame so pltf likely tripped over the boards and not the string, pltf was at fault for failing to look where she was stepping, and the City was immune on the barricade/warning issue pursuant to Section 3-104. Pltf argued that since the City began to warn residents of the danger posed by the sidewalk by putting up barriers and caution tape at night to prevent pedestrians from entering the construction zone, deft had taken measures to begin warning individuals and thereby had a duty to continue to warn of the danger in a reasonably safe manner; the Court allowed pltf to argue that the City failed to place any barricades, signs or caution tape around the construction site or verbally warn area residents on the date of the occurrence. The defense further pointed out that the pltf freely admitted the condition was open and obvious, she knew she was walking into a construction zone, and she was not looking down when she crossed the excavation and fell. Pltf asserted the construction itself was not the defect that caused her to fall, it was only the use of grading string which blended in with the wood. The defense has filed post-trial motions on several issues.
