Herman v. Will Township ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                              No. 3--96--0017

    _________________________________________________________________

      

                                     IN THE

      

                           APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

      

                                 THIRD DISTRICT

      

                                    A.D. 1996

    _________________________________________________________________

      

    VINCENT L. HERMAN,              )   Appeal from the Circuit Court

                                   )   of the 12th Judicial Circuit,

        Plaintiff-Appellee,        )   Will County, Illinois

                                   )

           v.                      )   No. 91--L--18465

                                   )

    WILL TOWNSHIP, a municipal      )

    corporation,                    )   Honorable

                                   )   Edwin B. Grabiec,

        Defendant-Appellant.       )   Judge Presiding

    _________________________________________________________________

      

    JUSTICE McCUSKEY delivered the opinion of the court:

    _________________________________________________________________

      

        The defendant, Will Township (Township), appeals from a

    judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Vincent Herman.  A jury

    awarded the plaintiff damages for injuries he suffered in an

    accident on a gravel road which had recently been improved by the

    Township.  

        On appeal, the Township first argues that the judgment should

    be reversed.  The Township contends that it was immune from

    liability pursuant to sections 2-109, 2-201 and 3-103(a) of the

    Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort

    Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/2-109, 2-201, 3-103(a) (West 1994)).  In

    the alternative, the Township argues that it is entitled to a new

    trial because: (1) the plaintiff was allowed to introduce evidence

    that the Township did not post warning signs; (2) the plaintiff was

    allowed to introduce a photograph of a different gravel road; (3)

    the trial court erroneously gave a missing witness instruction; and

    (4) the trial court allowed the plaintiff's expert, Paul Box, to

    render an opinion concerning the condition of the gravel road.

        After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the

    Township was not immune from liability pursuant to the Tort

    Immunity Act.  We further conclude that the Township is not

    entitled to a new trial.  As a result, we affirm.

                                      FACTS

        On July 25, 1991, the 65-year-old plaintiff was driving his

    Honda Elite 250 (moped) west on Eagle Lake Road.  He had never

    driven on Eagle Lake Road before, and, when he started driving on

    the road, it was paved.  Because it was an unposted rural road, the

    speed limit was 55 miles per hour.  The plaintiff was traveling

    about 45 miles per hour when he saw a rise in the road and slowed

    down to 42 or 43 miles per hour.  The plaintiff saw a color change

    in the road but could not tell whether the pavement turned into a

    gravel road until he was about 150 feet from where the pavement

    changed to gravel.  After he crossed Crawford Road, the plaintiff

    drove onto the north lane of the gravel road.  He tried braking,

    but his front wheel sunk into the gravel and his moped went down.

    As a consequence, the plaintiff suffered five broken ribs, a

    punctured lung, a fractured collar bone, a fractured scapula and a

    herniated disc in his neck.  Moreover, he had to have exploratory

    surgery because of internal bleeding, and his spleen was removed.

        On December 31, 1991, the plaintiff filed a complaint against

    Will Township.  The plaintiff alleged that the Township made

    improvements to Eagle Lake Road and caused the road to become

    unsafe by "leaving up to four (4) inches of uncompacted, coarse,

    loose gravel on the roadway."  The Township attempted to have the

    complaint dismissed based upon its claim of tort immunity.  The

    trial court denied the motion.  The Township also filed affirmative

    defenses, again claiming tort immunity and also claiming the

    plaintiff was guilty of contributory or comparative negligence

    because he failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to reduce

    speed to avoid the accident.

        A trial took place in October 1994.  On October 19, 1994, the

    jury returned a verdict in which it found for the plaintiff but

    awarded no damages.  The trial court later granted the plaintiff's

    motion for a new trial.  Will Township filed a petition for leave

    to appeal the new trial order.  This court denied the petition.  

        The second trial began on July 24, 1995.  Ronald Werner, the

    Township's road commissioner, testified that Eagle Lake Road was

    paved east of Crawford Road and was gravel west of Crawford Road.

    During the spring of 1991, Township employees began improving a

    one-mile section of the gravel road west of Crawford Road and east

    of Will Center Road.  The project was approved by the Illinois

    Department of Transportation (IDOT) and was completed in accordance

    with IDOT specifications.  The specifications did not include any

    requirements for compaction of the gravel.  

        The Township improved the road by widening it from 17 feet to

    20 feet and putting on a new 10-inch layer of gravel.  Township

    employees laid the new gravel in 3 to 3½ inch layers using two

    gravel trucks.  The project specifications required the Township to

    work from the end closest to the gravel quarry, so the employees

    started laying down gravel at Will Center Road.  They began at the

    south lane of the road.  Each layer was compacted by driving the

    gravel trucks over it.  Also, a grader was used to level and

    compact each layer.  The project was completed on July 21, 1991,

    four days prior to the plaintiff's accident.  The north lane just

    west of Crawford Road was completed last.  Werner admitted the

    trucks did not drive over the final layers as many times as the

    first layers.  He said that it was possible there was as much as 3½

    inches of loose gravel on the north lane of the road.  However, he

    testified that when he drove over the road on July 21, 1991, he

    thought it was sufficiently compacted.

        Three experts testified for the plaintiff.  Ronald Palmieri is

    a licensed engineer who specialized in pavement evaluation, design

    and construction.  He examined the road on August 8, 1991.

    Palmieri tested a spot on the north side of the road which he

    stated was representative of the first 50 feet west of Crawford

    Road.  He testified that most of this section of the road had four

    inches of loose gravel, although the loose gravel ranged from one

    to four inches.  Palmieri testified that a gravel road must be

    adequately compacted so that drivers can have a stable surface to

    drive over smoothly.  He testified that, in his opinion, the road

    in question was not adequately compacted.  As a consequence,

    Palmieri found the road to be unstable and unsafe.

        Paul Box, a traffic engineering consultant, went to the scene

    on August 16, 1991.  He testified that he saw several inches of

    loose gravel on the road.  He said the road had a "very treacherous

    surface."   He testified that it would be very easy to skid out of

    control because of the loose gravel on the road.  

        Gerald Dresselhouse, a civil engineer, testified that he was

    a consultant and had previously been a county road commissioner in

    Michigan.  He went to observe the scene of the accident in April

    1994.  He testified that, based upon his review of various

    documents and photographs, the surface by the intersection with

    Crawford Road had essentially zero compaction at the top one to

    four inches of the road.  In his opinion, he found the road to be

    unreasonably dangerous.  

        A photograph taken by Dresselhouse in April 1994 was shown to

    the jury over the Township's objection.  Dresselhouse testified it

    was "an enlargement of a photograph that [he] had taken of a gravel

    road in the area of our accident site here that depicts what an

    adequately compacted and adequately maintained surface should look

    like."  He said the photograph showed a different portion of Eagle

    Lake Road.   

        All three experts were allowed to testify that there were no

    warning signs posted at the site of the accident.  They all

    testified that, without any warning signs, a driver unfamiliar with

    the road could not observe that the pavement turned into gravel

    until it was too late to react to avoid an accident.  Each time

    this type of testimony was presented by the plaintiff, the trial

    court gave a limiting instruction that the evidence was only being

    admitted on the issue of the plaintiff's own negligence and not on

    the issue of the Township's negligence.

        On August 1, 1995, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the

    plaintiff, set damages at $509,000, and determined that the

    plaintiff was 40% negligent.  Judgment was entered on the verdict

    in the sum of $305,400.  Following the denial of its post-trial

    motion, the Township filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                  TORT IMMUNITY

        The Township points out that "no statute, code, rule,

    regulation or standard in Illinois required a specific level of

    compaction" on the road at issue.  The Township contends that it

    had no duty to compact the gravel and the amount of compaction was

    a discretionary act on the part of Werner, the road commissioner.

    The Township claims it is entitled to immunity for Werner's

    discretionary actions under sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Tort

    Immunity Act.  It also argues that it is entitled to immunity under

    section 3-103 of the Tort Immunity Act because the plan for

    improving the road was approved by IDOT.  We disagree with the

    Township's position.

        Section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act codifies the common

    law duty of a local public body to maintain its property, including

    roads, in a reasonably safe condition.  (745 ILCS 3-102(a) (West

    1994); Wagner v. City of Chicago, 166 Ill. 2d 144, 152, 651 N.E.2d

    1120, 1124 (1995).  Numerous cases, many of which have been cited

    and relied upon by the Township, hold that this common law duty to

    maintain does not include a duty to undertake improvements to

    public property.  See, e.g., Kennell v. Clayton Township, 239 Ill.

    App. 3d 634, 640-42, 606 N.E.2d 812, 816-18 (1992); Havens v.

    Harris Township, 175 Ill. App. 3d 768, 771, 530 N.E.2d 284, 285

    (1988); Ross v. City of Chicago, 168 Ill. App. 3d 83, 89, 522

    N.E.2d 215, 218 (1988).  The decision to make these improvements is

    discretionary (Snyder v. Curran Township, 167 Ill. 2d 466, 474-75,

    657 N.E.2d 988, 993 (1995)), and local public entities are not

    liable for failing to undertake public improvements of the roadways

    (Hull v. City of Chicago, 236 Ill. App. 3d 405, 406, 602 N.E.2d

    1300, 1301 (1992)).  Accordingly, this court, in Havens, stated

    that a "township has no common law duty to widen roads, smooth

    gravel, erect signs, or mow weeds."  Havens, 175 Ill. App. 3d at

    771, 530 N.E.2d at 285.  

        However, it is well settled that the local public body's

    general duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe manner

    encompasses a specific duty to make public improvements, once

    undertaken, in a reasonably safe manner.  Wagner v. City of

    Chicago, 254 Ill. App. 3d 842, 851, 626 N.E.2d 1227, 1234 (1993),

    aff'd, 166 Ill. 2d 144, 651 N.E.2d 1120 (1995); Havens, 175 Ill.

    App. 3d at 771, 530 N.E.2d at 285.  Our supreme court recently

    stated in Snyder that "once the decision to perform the work is

    made, it must be done with reasonable care and in a nonnegligent

    manner."  (Emphasis added.)  Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d at 474-75, 657

    N.E.2d at 993.  A local public body is liable in tort when it

    undertakes a public improvement and the improvement creates an

    unreasonably dangerous condition.  Hull, 236 Ill. App. 3d at 406,

    602 N.E.2d at 130; Santelli v. City of Chicago, 222 Ill. App. 3d

    862, 867, 584 N.E.2d 456, 459 (1991); see also Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d

    at 475, 657 N.E.2d at 993.  

        Based upon this well-settled case law, we summarily reject the

    Township's contention that it had "no duty."  Because the Township

    undertook to improve a portion of Eagle Lake Road, it had a duty to

    proceed with reasonable care.  In addition, it is well settled that

    as soon as a local public entity begins to carry out its plan to

    make a public improvement, it acts ministerially.  Bonnell v.

    Regional Board of School Trustees, 258 Ill. App. 3d 485, 490, 630

    N.E.2d 547, 550 (1994); Eck v. McHenry County Public Building

    Comm'n, 237 Ill. App. 3d 755, 762-63, 604 N.E.2d 1109, 1115 (1992);

    see also Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d at 474, 657 N.E.2d at 993.  A local

    public entity does not have discretionary immunity for ministerial

    acts.  See Snyder, 167 Ill. 2d at 473, 657 N.E.2d at 992.  For this

    reason, the Township is not entitled to discretionary immunity

    pursuant to sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Tort Immunity Act.

        We also conclude that the Township is not entitled to immunity

    under section 3-103(a) of the Act.  This section of the Act states

    that a local public entity is immune from liability "for an injury

    caused by the adoption of a plan or design of a construction of, or

    an improvement to public property where the plan or design has been

    approved in advance of the construction or improvement."  (Emphasis

    added.)  745 ILCS 10/3-103(a) (West 1994).  The section also

    provides that the "local public entity is liable, however, if after

    the execution of such plan or design it appears from its use that

    it has created a condition that is not reasonably safe."  (Emphasis

    added.)  745 ILCS 10/3-103(a) (West 1994).

        The Township claims immunity because the gravel road was

    constructed based upon specifications approved by IDOT.  However,

    section 3-103(a) immunity has been held inapplicable unless the

    injuries result from the adoption of a plan or design.  Eck, 237

    Ill. App. 3d at 764, 604 N.E.2d at 1117.  Here, the plaintiff's

    claim was that his injuries were caused by the unsafe condition of

    the road after the work was done.  The plaintiff has never claimed

    that his injuries were caused by any defect in the plan or design

    of the road.  In addition, by its own terms, section 3-103(a) does

    not provide immunity where "it appears from it use" that a local

    public entity has created a condition that is not reasonably safe.

    745 ILCS 10/3-103(a) (West 1994); see Cole v. City of East Peoria,

    201 Ill. App. 3d 756, 758, 761, 559 N.E.2d 769, 771, 773 (1990).  

        The Township strenuously argues that this exception to

    immunity does not apply in this case.  The Township notes that it

    received no complaints or notification of other accidents in the

    four days between the completion of the project and the plaintiff's

    accident.  The Township concludes that this lack of notice means

    that it is entitled to immunity.  We do not agree.  

        Here, Werner observed the road after the improvement was

    completed.  He admitted that it was possible there was 3½ inches of

    loose gravel left on the road.  The plaintiff's experts testified

    that the road was not adequately compacted and was unsafe.  Because

    the evidence showed that the Township created a condition that was

    not reasonably safe, and had notice of the condition, the Township

    was not entitled to immunity under section 3-103(a) of the Tort

    Immunity Act.

                                  TRIAL ERRORS

        The Township next contends that it is entitled to a new trial

    because of four specified trial errors.  We do not agree.

        The Township initially claims that the trial court abused its

    discretion when it allowed witnesses to testify there were no

    warning signs posted on the road.  The Township insists the

    testimony was improper because it cannot be held liable for failing

    to post warning signs under section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act.

    We agree with the Township's claim that section 3-104 of the Tort

    Immunity Act provides absolute immunity for a local public entity's

    failure to initially provide traffic signals and signs.  745 ILCS

    10/3-104 (West 1994); West v. Kirkham, 147 Ill. 2d 1, 6-8, 588

    N.E.2d 1104, 1106-08 (1992).  

        In this case, however, the trial court allowed the evidence to

    be presented only as it pertained to the Township's affirmative

    defenses that the plaintiff was negligent.  Each time a witness

    testified regarding the fact there were no warning signs to alert

    the plaintiff, the trial court gave a limiting instruction that the

    testimony could not be considered on the issue of the Township's

    negligence.  

        Evidentiary rulings properly rest within the sound discretion

    of the trial court.  Smith v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 272 Ill.

    App. 3d 451, 455, 650 N.E.2d 1108, 1112-13 (1995).  Absent an abuse

    of discretion resulting in prejudice to the party objecting, those

    rulings will not be disturbed on appeal.  Smith, 272 Ill. App. 3d

    at 455, 650 N.E.2d at 1112-13.  Evidence is relevant when it tends

    to prove a fact in controversy or renders a matter in dispute more

    or less probable.  Smith, 272 Ill. App. 3d at 458, 650 N.E.2d at

    1114-15.  

        In the instant case, the challenged testimony was relevant to

    the issue of whether the plaintiff should have been alerted to the

    change from the solid pavement to gravel and whether the plaintiff

    should have been able to slow down to avoid the accident.  Also,

    the Township was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence

    because the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction.

    Accordingly, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion.

        Second, the Township argues that the trial court abused its

    discretion when it allowed the photograph of a different portion of

    Eagle Lake Road to be introduced into evidence.  This photograph

    was shown to the jury during the testimony of the plaintiff's

    expert witnesses.  It was not admitted into evidence and was not

    published to the jury.  Furthermore, the photograph did not go into

    the jury room during deliberations.  The trial court stated that it

    was allowing the photograph to be shown to the jury only for

    demonstrative purposes.  

        Demonstrative evidence has no probative value in itself, but

    serves as a visual aid to the jury in comprehending the verbal

    testimony of a witness.  Cisarik v. Palos Community Hospital, 144

    Ill. 2d 339, 341-42, 579 N.E.2d 873, 874 (1991).  It is within the

    trial court's discretion to determine whether a party may present

    demonstrative evidence to clarify an expert's testimony.

    Continental Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Century Road Builders, Inc., 195

    Ill. App. 3d 1, 13, 552 N.E.2d 1032, 1040 (1990).  The trial

    court's determination regarding the admissibility of demonstrative

    evidence will not be disturbed by a reviewing court absent a clear

    abuse of discretion.  Elder v. Finney, 256 Ill. App. 3d 424, 427,

    628 N.E.2d 393, 395 (1993).  

        Here, the trial court decided that the photograph could be

    used as demonstrative evidence and should be shown to the jury to

    illustrate the experts' testimony regarding the adequate compaction

    of a gravel road.  We conclude that the trial court did not abuse

    its discretion in allowing the photograph to be used for this

    limited purpose.

        We additionally note that the Township has supplemented the

    record on appeal with the original, unenlarged photograph.  We have

    carefully studied the photograph and find that it does not

    illustrate much of anything and certainly could not be viewed as

    prejudicial.  From our review of the photograph and the record on

    appeal, we conclude that the showing of the photograph to the jury

    did not prejudice the Township in any way.

        Third, the Township argues that reversible error occurred when

    the trial court gave a "missing witness" instruction.  The Township

    used an expert witness, Mel Larsen, who testified at the first

    trial.  Larsen was listed by the Township as a witness for the

    second trial.  Prior to the second trial, the Township was allowed

    a continuance based upon Larsen's unavailability.  However, during

    the second trial, the Township did not call Larsen as a witness.

    The Township did not notify the plaintiff prior to trial that

    Larsen would not be testifying, and the plaintiff's attorney

    referred to Larsen's expected expert testimony in his opening

    statement to the jury.  

        When Larsen did not testify, the plaintiff requested a

    "missing witness" instruction.  The plaintiff argued that Larsen's

    credibility was impeached during the first trial when it was shown

    there was no basis for Larsen's opinions.  The trial court gave the

    plaintiff's instruction over the Township's objection.

        The Township argues that it made the decision not to call

    Larsen as an expert witness at the second trial because the main

    points sought to be established by his testimony were already

    presented to the jury during its cross-examination of the

    plaintiff's three experts.  The Township contends that the

    instruction was improperly given because it had a valid reason not

    to call Larsen and because Larsen's opinions were not adverse to

    the Township.

        The "missing witness" instruction tells the jury that it may

    infer that the testimony of the witness would be adverse to the

    party failing to offer it when: (1) the witness was under the

    control of the party; (2) the witness was not equally available to

    the other party; (3) a reasonably prudent person under the same or

    similar circumstances would have produced the witness ; and (4) no

    reasonable excuse for the failure to call the witness has been

    shown.  Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 5.01 (3d ed.

    1995); Taylor v. Kohli, 162 Ill. 2d 91, 97, 642 N.E.2d 467, 469

    (1994).  It is true that a missing witness instruction is not

    warranted where the witness's testimony would merely have been

    cumulative.  See Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 276 Ill.

    App. 3d 1023, 1029, 659 N.E.2d 979, 983 (1995).  However, in

    Wilkerson, the court found the instruction should not have been

    given because the testimony of the expert witnesses the defendants

    failed to call would have been cumulative of the favorable

    testimony given by the defendants' other expert.  Wilkerson, 276

    Ill. App. 3d at 1028-30, 659 N.E.2d at 983-84.  Here, the Township

    is arguing that it did not call Larsen as a witness because his

    testimony would have been cumulative of the generally adverse

    testimony of the plaintiff's experts.  Based on our review, we do

    not find the defendant's argument to be persuasive.

        A missing witness instruction was held properly given when the

    expert who did not testify at trial was listed as the defendants'

    expert and was deposed and where the defendants had previously

    obtained a continuance of the trial to enable the expert to

    testify.  Ryan v. E.A.I. Construction Corp., 158 Ill. App. 3d 449,

    462-63, 511 N.E.2d 1244, 1253 (1987).  In addition, a missing

    witness instruction may be appropriate if no notice is given to the

    opposing side that the expert will not be called.  See Taylor, 162

    Ill. 2d at 97-98, 642 N.E.2d at 469-70.  The decision to instruct

    the jury as to the adverse inference of missing witnesses is within

    the sound discretion of the trial court.  Simmons v. Univ