Goff v. Guarantee Electric Company

Filing 33

ORDER: The Court GRANTS Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28). As no counts remain pending, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/16/15. (cmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RUTHANN GOFF,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-766-SMY-PMF

GUARANTEE ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
28). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
This suit arises out of Plaintiff’s claim that she was injured when she slipped on a zip tie
at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital on August 27, 2013. (Doc. 30, Ex. A 22, 29, 25). In November 2011,
Defendant began work installing a fire alarm system at the hospital. (Doc. 30, Ex. B 8,10,14)
The new fire alarm system was fully operational by June, 2013. (Doc. 30, Ex. D 26) The last day
Defendant had a regular work crew at St. Elizabeth’s was July 19, 2013. (Doc. 30, Ex. G) On
August 2, 5, 6, 13, and 21, 2013, Mr. Schlau, the foreman on the project, visited St. Elizabeth’s.
However, he did not have a work crew with him and did not perform any work or use any zip
ties in the hallway where Plaintiff fell. (Doc. 30, Ex. E) No work was performed by Defendant’s
employees on the fire alarm project between July 20, 2013 and August 27, 2013. (Doc. 30, Ex.
E)
The day before the incident, Plaintiff saw three men working on ladders near the drop
ceiling at three areas in the hallway near where she fell. (Doc. 30, Ex. A, 22-23). Plaintiff does
not know the identity or employer of the men. (Doc. 30, Ex. A 22-23). However, Plaintiff did
not think they were employees of the hospital because they were not wearing the typical

maintenance department uniform. (Doc. 30, Ex. A 18-19). Plaintiff did not see any debris on the
floor, and she also did not see any zip ties near where the men were working. (Doc. 30, Ex. A
25-26).
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels
Int’l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). The reviewing court must construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Chelios v.
Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
In responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rest
upon the allegations contained in the pleadings but must present specific facts to show that a
genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-26;
Johnson v. City of Fort Wayne, 91 F.3d 922, 931 (7th Cir. 1996). The issue of fact must be
“genuine.” Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 56(c), (e). A genuine issue of material fact is not demonstrated
by the mere existence of “some alleged factual dispute between the parties,” Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 247, or by “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue of material fact exists
only if “a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the evidence
presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. The district court may not resolve any conflicts in the
testimony nor weigh the evidence, except to the extent of determining whether substantial
evidence could support a jury verdict: “[A] mere scintilla of evidence will not suffice.” Von
Zuckerstein v. Argonne National Laboratory, 984 F.2d 1467, 1471 (7th Cir.1993).

2

In this case, Plaintiff has not proffered any evidence that would permit a fair-minded jury
to return a verdict finding Defendant liable for her injury. There is no evidence that any
employee of Defendant was present or working in the hallway in question at or near the time of
the incident. While the representative of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital testified that he could not rule
out that Defendant’s employees were working in the area where the plaintiff slipped, (Doc. 31,
Ex. F 109) this testimony alone is insufficient to create a material issue of fact as to whether
Defendant’s employees were present in the hallway at or near the time of the incident. Further,
there is no evidence that the zip tie Plaintiff slipped on originated from Defendant’s employees.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28).
As no counts remain pending, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 16, 2015
/s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

3