Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Wright v. Board of Education

Wright v. Board of Education

Case Date: 11/01/2002
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-01-2348 Rel

1-01-2348


ANITA WRIGHT, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
                            Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County.
)
                 v. )
) No. 98 L 11894
)
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE )
CITY OF CHICAGO, ) Honorable
) Mary Mulhern,
                            Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.


JUSTICE REID delivered the opinion of the court:

Anita Wright sustained personal injuries on September 15, 1998, when she fell whileleaving a school under the control of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board). Wright brought an action against the Board to recover damages for her injuries. After rulingadversely on plaintiff's second amended complaint, the trial court granted leave to file a thirdamended complaint. Thereafter, the Board filed another motion for summary judgment. Ingranting the Board's motion for summary judgment, the trial court ruled the claim was time-barred by the construction statute of repose, section 13-214(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (735 ILCS 5/13-214(b) (West 1998)). This appeal followed.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 1998, during her first visit, Wright fell upon exiting the main entranceof Carter G. Woodson South Elementary School (the school). She was at the school to registerher two children for school. She mistakenly entered the adjacent Woodson North school, thenwalked through to Woodson South.

The fall occurred as Wright exited the middle door of the main entrance. Wright fell,even though the step immediately outside the doorway was at the same level as the surface insidethe doorway.(1) The location and size of the step immediately adjacent to the main entranceremained unchanged from its condition on the date the building was opened in 1965. As a resultof her fall, Wright sustained a fracture of the ankle requiring surgery. Wright sued the Board ofEducation of the City of Chicago, the entity that built the school in1965 and continues tomaintain it to the present day.

Anthony Castleman was able, from his workstation at a desk just inside the middle doorof the main entrance, to see Wright fall. He observed her lead with her left foot across thedoorway and fall down. He indicated that she did not come into contact with the step that wasadjacent to the doorway at the same level as the floor at the threshold. Castleman also indicatedthat he has observed many people miss the step when exiting the building. When asked,Castleman further indicated that he saw people having problems exiting the school on a weeklybasis.

At the Board's request, Victor Kuchler, a licensed architect, reviewed the originalbuilding plans and photographs of the doorway. Suzanne Glowiak, who holds a bachelor'sdegree in mechanical engineering, also reviewed the materials. Both described the step as a slabadjacent to the doorway, akin to a cut limestone sill. They both indicate that a downward stepwould be required to traverse from the level of the floor in the building to ground. When Wrightstrode out of the school, she apparently missed the step. Wright indicated that the step wasneither broken nor indented. Wright also indicated that there was no liquid, debris or garbage onthe step. Wright testified that she fell because she extended her foot away from the buildingbeyond the step. As a result, Wright stepped onto the ground at a lower level than the step'stread.

Wright's original complaint sought to impose liability on the Board for violations ofunidentified national codes pertaining to exits because the step landing was not as wide as theexit door and for failure to warn. The first amended complaint asserted liability for violations ofsection 13-160-300(c) the Chicago Municipal Code. Chicago Municipal Code