You are a clerk for the judge assigned to this case. The judge asks you to prepare an essay, explaining to her why, under Illinois law, she should grant or dismiss the motion for summary judgment. Please help the judge.

CASE SCENERIO:

The plaintiff Alan was trying to catch a plane at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. He knew that he was late for his plane and so, he was running through the airport as fast as possible. Unfortunately, Alan does not see the banana peel that was lying on the floor in the middle of the concourse. He slipped on the banana peel and went sliding across the floor. He banged his head on a metal counter and suffered a severe head injury.

Alan now files a lawsuit against the airport, which, we will assume, is in charge of maintaining the concourse, alleging negligence on the part of the Airport. A subsequent investigation revealed that the banana peel was brownish when Alan slipped on it. Alan states that he has no idea where the peel came from and why it ended up where it did.

The Airport moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Alan has not alleged any evidence of negligence on the part of the airport. The Airport claims that it has no idea how the peel got there, but it could have been dropped a moment ago by another passenger, and that Alan can't disprove this possibility.

The issue that must be decided is whether the airport’s motion for summary judgment should be granted or dismissed.

Alan bears the burden of proving that the banana peel had in fact been lying in the floor long enough that the railroad would be deemed negligent in not removing it. Alan is unable to prove how long the banana peel was laying in the floor before he came along and slipped on it. The fact that the banana peel was brown still does not establish how long it had been lying in the floor.

In the case of Antibus v. W. T. Grant Co., 297 Ill. App. 363 (Ill. App. Ct. 1938), the defendant store owner appealed a judgment from the City Court of City of East St. Louis Illinois which denied his motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff patron in the patron’s action to recover damages for injuries that occurred when he slipped on a banana peel and fell down the stairs in the store. The patron claimed that the owner was negligent in not removing the banana peel from the stairway. The owner claimed that the patron failed to show that he, the store owner, had knowledge or should have known that the banana peel was on the stairway. On appeal, the court found that the store owners request for a directed verdict should have been sustained. The court stated that it was a matter of question as to when the banana peel came to be on the stairs. The patron did not witness the banana peel being dropped on the floor therefore there was no testimony as to how long the banana peel had remained on the floor. Therefore there was no evidence that proved the banana peel had remained on the stairs long enough to charge the store owner with knowledge of its presence. The court reversed the judgment.

In the case of Davis v. South S. E. R. Co., 292 Ill. 378 (Ill. 1920), the appellant railroad sought a review of a judgment from the First Appellant Court for the First District (Illinois), which had found in favor of appellee passenger in her negligence action against the railroad after she slipped and fell on a banana peel. The railroad argued that it was only required to exercise ordinary care and there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had not exercised ordinary care. The court noted that if it had been shown that the banana peel had been negligently laying on the floor time long enough to warrant the railroad negligent, then that might have justified a verdict against the railroad under the rule requiring exercise of ordinary care. Such was not able to be shown and therefore the court reversed the appellant court’s decision and remanded the matter to the trial court.

The airport states that it has “no idea how the peel got there, but it could have been dropped a moment ago by another passenger, and that Alan can't disprove this possibility.” In the case of Goddard v. Boston & M. R. Co., 179 Mass. 52 (Mass. 1901), the plaintiff in this case sought award alleging that said railroad was negligent and responsible when he slipped on a banana peel lying on the floor. The court ruled that the banana skin upon which the plaintiff stepped and which caused him to slip may have been dropped within a minute by one of the persons who was leaving the train. The court stated that it was unnecessary to go further to decide the case. This case was also cited in the aforementioned case of Davis v. South S. E. R. Co., 292 Ill. 378 (Ill. 1920).

In all three of the aforementioned cases, the courts came to the same conclusion. If the injured parties had been able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the banana peels had remained on the floor long enough to establish that exercise of ordinary care had not been performed, negligence could have been established.

In conclusion, Alan has not been able to establish how long the banana peel remained on the floor or that it remained there long enough for negligence to be established. The court should grant the airports request for summary judgment.