Title: Ziencina v. County of Cook
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85541
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 1999

Docket No. 85541-Agenda 7-March 1999.
PAUL R. ZIENCINA, Appellee, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK, A Municipal Corporation, Appellant.
Opinion filed September 30, 1999.
JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the plaintiff, Paul R. Ziencina, was awarded $600,000 in damages
in this personal injury action against the defendant, Cook County, for its negligence in clearing snow at a highway
intersection. The appellate court affirmed that judgment in an unpublished order. No. 1-96-1212 (unpublished order under
Supreme Court Rule 23). We allowed the defendant's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)), and we now affirm
the judgment of the appellate court.
The accident at issue occurred early in the morning on January 31, 1991. At that time, the plaintiff was driving north on
Ridgeland Avenue near the city of Matteson when he stopped at the intersection of Ridgeland and Vollmer Road. The
plaintiff intended to turn left onto Vollmer, an east-west route. A mound of snow on the southwest corner of the intersection
blocked the plaintiff's view to the west, however, and the plaintiff's car was struck by a vehicle coming from the west on
Vollmer as the plaintiff edged out into the intersection to get a better view of traffic. Both roads were two-lane highways
with speed limits of 45 miles per hour; traffic on Ridgeland, but not on Vollmer, was required to stop at the intersection.
The plaintiff commenced the present action on July 9, 1991, by filing suit against Cook County, which maintained the
intersection, and Terry Miller, the driver of the other vehicle. The plaintiff later settled with Miller, and that portion of the
action is not involved in this appeal. The plaintiff's claim against the county alleged that the county was negligent in
plowing snow into a large pile, which blocked the view of northbound traffic on Vollmer, and in failing to remove the snow
after placing it there.
At trial, the plaintiff testified that on the morning of the accident, January 31, 1991, he left home around 6:15 or 6:20 to go
to work; he was driving a 1981 Toyota Corolla. The plaintiff drove north on Ridgeland toward Vollmer Road, stopped at
the stop sign, and noticed a huge pile of snow on the southwest corner. The plaintiff intended to make a left turn. He looked
right and left, but he could not see anything to the left because of the snow bank. The plaintiff edged forward to get a better
view of eastbound traffic on Vollmer. He was at the edge of Vollmer but he still could not see, so he moved out a little
more. He next remembered being hit by another vehicle. On cross-examination, the plaintiff testified that he went to work
the day before the accident and drove through the intersection without incident.
Terry Miller, the driver of the vehicle that struck the plaintiff's car, testified by way of a videotaped evidence deposition.
Miller stated that on January 31, 1991, he was driving to work around 6 a.m., traveling eastbound on Vollmer Road in a
Chevrolet Blazer. That morning, Miller noticed a pile of snow at the southwest corner of the intersection of Vollmer and
Ridgeland. The highest point of the mound was at the edge of the intersection, and the pile extended 30 to 40 feet south on
Ridgeland. According to Miller, the snow stood higher than the roof of a car, and it appeared to have been created by
plowing rather than by drifting.
Miller testified that he slowed down as he approached the intersection, so that he was going 30 to 40 miles per hour
immediately before the collision. Miller said that he was 40 to 60 feet from the intersection when he noticed the front end of
the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff then pulled forward slowly, and Miller hit the side of the plaintiff's car a second or two
later.
Robert Thelen, a neighbor of the plaintiff, followed the plaintiff to the intersection of Vollmer and Ridgeland on the
morning of the accident. At trial, Thelen testified that there was snow piled on the southwest corner of the intersection that
day, and he estimated that the pile stood about the height of two cars, or eight to nine feet. Thelen thought that the snow had
been plowed there and was not the result of drifting. Thelen saw the plaintiff stop at the stop line on the pavement before
the intersection. The plaintiff then moved forward slowly and stopped, and he repeated that pattern several times before he
finally entered the intersection. The plaintiff was then hit by a vehicle traveling eastbound on Vollmer Road. Thelen, who
was driving a pickup truck that morning, testified that the mound of snow prevented him from seeing eastbound traffic on
Vollmer.
Voies Phillips, also a neighbor of the plaintiff, arrived at the intersection shortly after the plaintiff's accident. Phillips
testified that he saw a huge pile of snow at the southwest corner of the intersection of Vollmer and Ridgeland. Phillips said
that the snow stood five feet high and extended south of Vollmer for about 20 to 25 feet. Phillips believed that the snow had
been plowed there and was not the result of drifting; he could see marks in the snow where the blade of the plow had cut
into the pile, and on the roadway were trails of snow like those left by a plow. Phillips testified that when he tried to make a
right turn at the intersection, he could not see the traffic approaching from the west on Vollmer because the snow blocked
his view; he estimated that the pile stood about two or three feet higher than the roof of his car, a Chevrolet Caprice.
Phillips later spoke with the plaintiff about the accident, and the plaintiff explained that he did not see the car that hit him
because of the snow pile.
Detective Norman Bernsen of the Matteson police department was notified of the accident and arrived on the scene a little
after 6:30 that morning. Detective Bernsen testified that he noticed a mound of snow at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Vollmer and Ridgeland, and he stated that the snow appeared to have been plowed there. According to the
detective, the snow pile on the corner would have impaired the view of a driver traveling north on Ridgeland and looking to
the west.
The parties also presented evidence concerning the defendant's snow plow operations. According to this testimony, county
snow plow operators were instructed not to leave snow at intersections in such a manner that it could create a hazard by
blocking a driver's view. Snow plow operators were also instructed to report problems, including blocked sight lines, and
one snow plow driver stated that he would reduce the height of a pile of snow that stood five feet high. There was also
testimony that drifting had been reported on Ridgeland Avenue south of Vollmer on January 31, 1991. A witness explained
that there is a low spot on Ridgeland, about one-fourth to one-half mile south of Vollmer, where drifting can occur. The
witness also stated that farm fields lie to the south and west of the intersection and that, with certain winds, snow can blow
across the intersection. County employees who drove through the intersection on January 30 and 31 could not recall the
condition of the southwest corner.
Wayne Peterson, a meteorologist employed by a private weather forecasting service, described weather conditions for the
period preceding the plaintiff's accident. For this purpose, Peterson used data collected in Park Forest, which was the
closest reporting station. According to this information, a trace amount of snow fell during the 24-hour period ending at 8
a.m. on January 30, and no snow fell during the same period ending January 31. There were three inches of snow already on
the ground during those days.
Andrew Ramish testified as the plaintiff's expert witness. Ramish, a civil engineer, was president of the Institute for Safety
Analysis and acted as that entity's director of highway engineering. Ramish examined the police reports, photographs, and
depositions compiled in this case. He believed that county snow plow operators violated normal safety standards by placing
snow in a way that could obstruct drivers' sight lines at the intersection, which created an unnaturally dangerous condition.
In Ramish's opinion, the snow plow drivers should have pushed the snow back further, and they violated customary safety
standards by failing to do so.
The plaintiff also introduced evidence about his injuries and medical expenses. Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff
was taken to a hospital in Olympia Fields. Nine days later, he was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital. After a
month at Northwestern, he was transferred to the Rehabilitation Institute, where he stayed for three to four weeks to
undergo a course of physical therapy. The plaintiff, who was employed as a mechanic for a trucking company, returned to
work in June 1991 on a trial basis, and he resumed full-time employment in August of that year. The plaintiff testified that
he cannot perform as many tasks at work now as he could before the accident, and he said that movement is painful and the
weather affects him. He said that he is always in pain and that he takes an analgesic twice a day. The plaintiff was 45 years
old at the time of trial, in 1995.
The plaintiff's wife, Maryann Ziencina, also testified at trial, describing the plaintiff's characteristics and condition before
and after the accident. Mrs. Ziencina said that her husband now tires easily, is physically weaker than he was before the
accident, and is not as active as he used to be. Mrs. Ziencina also stated that the plaintiff finds physical contact to be
painful.
The jury also saw a videotape of an evidence deposition of the doctor who treated the plaintiff. Dr. Joan Boomsma saw the
plaintiff shortly after he arrived at Northwestern. He was critically ill and was being intubated. In the accident, the plaintiff
suffered a severe chest wall injury, resulting in multiple rib fractures, a flail chest, and bruising of the lungs, and he had air
and blood in his chest cavity. Nine of the plaintiff's ribs were fractured, and at least five of those were broken in two places.
Dr. Boomsma also stated that rib fractures like those suffered by the plaintiff can be very painful. Dr. Boomsma diagnosed
the plaintiff as having adult respiratory distress syndrome, or ARDS, a severe form of lung injury. Dr. Boomsma estimated
that more than half of the patients with ARDS do not survive.
Dr. Boomsma stated that she has not seen the plaintiff since he was discharged from Northwestern in March 1991. The
deposition in which she was appearing was given in November 1995, shortly before trial began. She stated that it was
conceivable that the plaintiff would continue to experience stiffness and discomfort on his injured side. Dr. Boomsma said
that the plaintiff's ARDS had essentially resolved itself by the time of his discharge from the hospital. She also stated that
patients who survive the condition have few residual problems with their lungs, which are essentially normal once recovery
occurs.
The jury found the defendant liable and calculated the plaintiff's damages, both past and future, to be $1.2 million.
Specifically, the jury found the plaintiff's medical bills to total $179,046.95, the amount stipulated to by the parties, and his
pain and suffering to be $1,020,953.05. The jury did not award the plaintiff any damages for disability. The jury also found
the plaintiff's own negligence to constitute 50% of the total fault and therefore awarded the plaintiff a net amount of
$600,000 in damages.
The appellate court affirmed, in an unpublished order. No. 1-96-1212 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
The appellate court rejected the defendant's various challenges to the circuit court judgment, including the arguments that
the defendant was statutorily immune from liability for the plaintiff's accident and that the jury should not have awarded the
plaintiff any damages for future pain and suffering. We allowed the defendant's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R.
315(a).
Before this court, the defendant renews its contentions that it is statutorily immune from liability and that the award of
damages for the plaintiff's future pain and suffering is not supported by the evidence, as well as several other challenges to
the judgments below. We consider first the defendant's claim of immunity. Section 3-105(a) of the Local Governmental
and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) provides:
Also relevant to our consideration of this appeal are two other provisions of the Tort Immunity Act. Section 3-105(c) states,
"Nothing in this Section shall relieve the local public entity of the duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of its
property as set forth in Section 3-102." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 85, par. 3-105(c) (now codified at 745 ILCS 10/3-105(c)
(West 1998)). Section 3-102(a) provides:
The defendant argues that section 3-105(a) immunizes it from liability in the instant case. The defendant construes section
3-105(a) broadly, as barring liability for the effects of weather conditions generally. The defendant thus maintains that
section 3-105(a) provides absolute immunity for injuries caused by or attributable to snow-removal efforts. The defendant
also argues, alternatively, that it may be held liable only for injuries caused by or attributable to unnatural accumulations of
ice and snow, and that the snow pile involved in this case must be considered a natural accumulation.
Because of the relationship between section 3-105(a) and the natural accumulation rule, it may be helpful first to review the
development of that doctrine in Illinois. Over the years, the rule has developed in this state, as it has in some other
jurisdictions, that landowners-whether public or private-are not liable for the failure to remove natural accumulations of ice
and snow on their property. In Illinois, the natural accumulation rule first appeared in a decision of this court, Graham v.
City of Chicago, 346 Ill. 638 (1931). In that case, the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice that had formed from water that had
overflowed during the winter-time creation of an ice skating rink. The court concluded that a municipality should not be
liable for the failure to remove naturally occurring ice and snow, but that liability was proper in that case because the ice
resulted from an unnatural cause-the formation of the skating rink.
The natural accumulation rule precluded liability in Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 1 Ill. 2d 133 (1953). The plaintiff in that case was
injured when she slipped and fell on a piece of ice or snow that had formed from banks of snow placed near a sidewalk. The
city had previously cleared the streets of snow, and a private landowner had then placed additional snow on the piles
already deposited. The plaintiff argued that the private landowner had created an unnatural accumulation, like that
recognized in Graham, by adding snow to the existing piles that lined the sidewalk. This court rejected the plaintiff's
argument that the property owner's placement of additional snow on top of existing snow banks created an artificial
condition for which the defendant could be held liable. The court explained:
For these reasons, the court concluded that the defendant landowner was not liable for the plaintiff's fall.
A later decision of this court considered the relationship between the natural accumulation rule and section 3-105(a) of the
Tort Immunity Act. In Lansing v. County of McLean, 69 Ill. 2d 562 (1978), the court disagreed with the plaintiff's
contentions that the defendant county had a duty either to clear ice and snow from county roads or to post signs warning of
the icy conditions, citing Graham and its progeny. The court believed that section 3-105(a) of the Tort Immunity Act
"codified the preexisting judicially created rule of nonliability" for injuries caused by natural accumulations of ice and
snow, and the court considered the unplowed ice and snow on which the plaintiff's car had skidded to be a natural
accumulation. Lansing, 69 Ill. 2d  at 572.
More recently, in a case factually similar to the present appeal, the appellate court considered the question of municipal
liability for an automobile accident allegedly caused by an obstruction created through snow-removal efforts. In Bellino v.
Village of Lake in the Hills, 166 Ill. App. 3d 702 (1988), the plaintiff's car was struck by another vehicle while the plaintiff
was attempting to make a left turn at an intersection; the plaintiff alleged that his view of traffic on the other street was
partially obstructed by a mound of snow that village employees had placed on the corner. The trial judge dismissed the
complaint, concluding that the municipality was immune from liability under sections 3-102 and 3-105 of the Tort
Immunity Act, and the appellate court affirmed. Citing this court's opinions in Riccitelli and Lansing, the appellate court
characterized the snow pile in that case as a natural accumulation, and the court therefore held that the defendant village
was immune from liability under section 3-105(a) of the Act.
The appellate court reached the opposite conclusion in Kiel v. City of Girard, 274 Ill. App. 3d 821 (1995). In that case, the
plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a pile of snow, which municipal employees had shoveled from the street
and sidewalk and placed on the curb. A jury found for the plaintiff. Declining to follow Bellino, the appellate court in Kiel
concluded that the city was not immune from liability for its snow-removal efforts. The Kiel court nonetheless held that the
jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, finding that the testimony failed to show that the city had
breached its duty of care. The court observed that the snow pile on which the plaintiff fell, though an unnatural
accumulation, was small and easily visible.
We conclude that the mound of snow created by the defendant county's snow-removal efforts is properly considered an
unnatural accumulation and that liability may be imposed against the defendant in these circumstances. This result, we
believe, is consistent with the provisions of the Tort Immunity Act as well as with Graham and its progeny. It is clear that a
local public entity has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from public property. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989,
ch. 85, par. 3-105(a) (now codified at 745 ILCS 10/3-105(a) (West 1998)) (relieving local public entities of liability for
injuries "caused by the effect of weather conditions as such"); Lansing, 69 Ill. 2d  at 573 (recognizing that section 3-105(a)
codifies the natural accumulation rule). At the same time, however, the immunity conferred by section 3-105(a) is made
subject to the requirement found in sections 3-102 and 3-105(c) that local public entities exercise due care in the
maintenance of their property. We believe that this latter requirement means that, if a local public entity undertakes snow-removal operations, it must exercise due care in doing so.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we agree with the plaintiff that the defendant county may be held liable for the
plaintiff's accident. The evidence in this case showed that a large mound of snow, standing higher than the plaintiff's car,
had been placed on the southwest corner of the intersection where the accident occurred. According to the testimony, the
snow mound was high enough to obstruct the view of the plaintiff and other drivers who drove through the intersection that
morning. Notably, the evidence also showed that the defendant's employees recognized the significant hazard posed by
such obstructions and would, in the exercise of ordinary care, reduce the height of a snow mound like this one.
Riccitelli, cited by the defendant, is not to the contrary. The defendant contends that the court in that case held that snow
piles are natural accumulations. In support of this interpretation, the defendant cites the following passage from the opinion,
in which this court quoted the appellate court:
We do not agree with the defendant that the preceding quotation signifies that this court concluded in that case that piles of
snow produced through snow-removal operations are necessarily natural accumulations. The cause of the accident in
Riccitelli was not the snow piles themselves, but ice that had formed as a result of the natural process of melting and
refreezing. The reference to the defendant's placement of the snow merely explains the extent of the landowner's role in
creating the piles, and how the snow happened to appear where it did. We do not construe the statement above as
determining that piles of cleared snow are natural accumulations, for which liability may never arise.
Given our result in this case, it is necessary that we briefly address several other issues raised by the defendant in opposition
to the judgment below. The defendant argues that it had no notice of the mound of snow at the intersection and, further, that
the jury should have been required to find that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition. We believe that the
evidence demonstrates that the defendant possessed notice and, moreover, that a finding of notice was implicit in the jury's
determination of liability in this case. The defendant complains that no witness actually saw the defendant's employees
deposit the large snow pile at the intersection, but this argument overlooks the witnesses who testified that the snow mound
bore markings that indicated that it had been pushed into its position by a snow plow. This evidence also served to establish
that the defendant had notice of the condition, a requirement mentioned in section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act. The
plaintiff's theory at trial was that employees of the defendant, through their snow-removal efforts, left a large mound of
snow at the intersection where the collision occurred. The plaintiff did not argue that the defendant simply failed to reduce
the height of a snow drift that had formed at that location; instead, the plaintiff theorized that the defendant had plowed
snow into a pile at that point. In finding the defendant liable under this theory, the jury would have necessarily concluded
that the defendant had notice of the hazard it created.
In a related contention, the defendant complains that a new trial is required because the trial judge erroneously failed to use
certain instructions proffered by the defense. The instructions at issue are Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, Nos.
125.01 and 125.03 (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, Nos. 125.01, 125.03 (3d ed. 1990)). We do not believe that the
proposed instructions were relevant here, for they are designated for use in cases involving a landowner's liability for a fall
on ice and snow. In contrast to the intended application of those instructions, the present case does not involve a slip and
fall and does not allege landowner liability. We believe that the trial judge properly refused the defendant's instructions.
The defendant also contends that the trial judge erred in permitting the jury to award the plaintiff damages for future pain
and suffering. The defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony in support of those damages, and
that the award therefore cannot be sustained. We need not determine here whether expert testimony is in some
circumstances required to sustain an award for future pain and suffering, for we believe that the evidence presented by the
plaintiff was sufficient. The plaintiff's accident resulted in severe injuries to his chest, lungs, and ribs. The testimony
showed that the plaintiff continued, through the time of trial, to suffer pain from those injuries. His work has been affected,
he tires easily, and he finds physical contact to be painful. We conclude that the evidence regarding the nature of the
plaintiff's specific injuries to his chest area (see A.O. Smith Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 69 Ill. 2d 240, 245 (1977)) and the
plaintiff's and his wife's testimony regarding the ways in which the accident continues to affect him were sufficient grounds
on which the jury could base its award. We do not agree with the defendant that the testimony of the plaintiff's treating
physician, Dr. Boomsma, was inconsistent with the award.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.