Rengren v. Horseshoe Hammond, LLC et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable John F. Grady on 3/21/2013. Mailed notice (cjg, )
11-8711.131
March 21, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DIANNE RENGREN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HORSESHOE HAMMOND, LLC d/b/a
)
HORSESHOE HAMMOND CASINO and
)
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, )
)
Defendants.
)
No. 11 C 8711
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The
defendant
Horseshoe
judgment on three grounds.
Hammond,
LLC
moves
for
summary
It argues that the evidence fails to
show: (1) that the plaintiff slipped and fell on the puddle of
water in question; (2) that the defendant’s portable bar, as
opposed to some other source, was responsible for the puddle; and
(3) that the defendant had notice that the water was on the floor.
On
the
first
two
issues,
we
believe
there
is
evidence
sufficient for a jury to conclude that the plaintiff did slip and
fall on the puddle of water and that the water came from the
defendant’s portable bar.
The plaintiff’s deposition testimony is
that she lost her footing on “something wet.” (Def.’s Mot., Ex. A,
at 68.)
When she was on the ground, she could see “small amounts
of water that was just beyond where [her] face was laying.”
(Def.’s Mot., Ex. A, at 69.)
Gina Huff, a casino patron, saw the
- 2 -
plaintiff fall.
(Def.’s Mot., Ex. D, at 7.)
She went over to the
area where plaintiff had fallen and saw a puddle of water that was
near the bar area.
There is no evidence of any other reason for a
slippery surface. Two casino employees, Kimberly Knoche and Thomas
Cypress,
testified
that
water
from
melting
ice
cubes
at
the
portable bar had escaped onto the marble floor on occasions prior
to the plaintiff’s fall.
The defendant points out that a surveillance DVD shows that
only nineteen seconds before plaintiff’s fall, “a casino patron
carried an open beverage across the very area where plaintiff’s
foot slipped.” (Def.’s Reply at 1.) The patron could have spilled
some of the drink, but we think the plaintiff is entitled to have
a jury weigh the probabilities.
A jury could well find that, as
against the likelihood that a patron walking with a drink would
spill some of it, the continuous operation of the portable bar with
a chest of melting ice was a more likely source of the puddle.
On the question of notice, the plaintiff cites a number of
Illinois cases indicating that proof of actual or constructive
notice is unnecessary where the dangerous condition was created by
the defendant.
Here, we believe that the jury could find from the
evidence that the puddle of water was a result of leakage from the
defendant’s portable bar.
In that event, the plaintiff would not
need to show how long the puddle had been there or that the
- 3 -
defendant’s employees knew it was there.1
CONCLUSION
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment [17] is denied.
DATE:
March 21, 2013
ENTER:
_________________________________________________
John F. Grady, United States District Judge
1/
This will require some carefully-drafted jury instructions, and the
parties are requested to have their proposals prepared in advance of trial.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?