Melanie Shaker had gone out to dinner and had been drinking with her husband when she became angry with him on the walk home. She tried to kick her husband, lost her footing, and fell through the front window of Fases Salon. She is now suing the salon for failing to anticipate falling drunken and clumsy people by installing safety glass. She is also suing the hospital that treated her and the trust that owns the property.
Her complaint alleges that the salon was negligent in having a plate glass window on a sidewalk “frequently traveled by intoxicated pedestrians” in violation of the City of Chicago’s building code– suggesting a negligence per se claim. They should have had safety glass to “prevent injuries from those coming into contact with it, including pedestrians, intoxicated pedestrians [or] pedestrians on their way to or from a Cubs game.” She is also suing the Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where Shaker was treated — claiming that someone stole $6,000 worth of jewelry and her blackberry. She is also suing the North Star Trust Company, who holds the title to the property; and Amato and Rose Banducci who own the beneficial interest to the land trust.
She could prove the newest Dustin Dibble, a drunken man who collected $2.3 million after falling on a metro track and being hit by a train, here.
In 1855 in Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co., the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a drunk who fell in a hole in a sidewalk, noting “A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street, as a sober one, and much more in need of it.”
For the full story, click here.
I’m not sure about US law, but in the UK if you hurt yourself while committing a crime, the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (you can’t sue based on your own illegality) would stop this case. She was committing a crime – not sure what it would be called in IL, but here it would probably be attempted Actual Bodily Harm – and therefore cannot sue when that directly leads to injury.
A bit of residenial, normally mainly commercial, but recently a lot of hospitals and student accomodation blocks.
I keep forgetting that you guys don’t have a long history – guess you’ll just have to wait.
Maaarrghk!:
“A case in point might be that of stained glass in a 1000 year old cathedral.”
Quit showing off. 🙂 You know we Yanks are barely able to do 200 years.
If we do a remodel we have to bring everything up to current codes, at least the portion involved in the remodel. Sometimes the local authority will get you to up-grade the bathrooms to ADA specs even if nowhere near the action.
Do you do more commercial or residential work?
Yes, shard. A truly excellent word. Try saying it in a John Cooper Clarke voice.
Sounds like she shard the pain……
I am indeed Byron. I am a Draughtsman involved in the design of architectural metalwork. This includes certain glazed elements such as canopies, balustrade and some curtain walling.
I asked the question because in the UK our legislation usually tends to be non-retrospective and there can also be exemptions for surviving original fitments in “listed” buildings – that is buildings of historical interest.
A case in point might be that of stained glass in a 1000 year old cathedral. Do we replace the original item because some scumbag might throw a brick through it and get cut by falling shards?
Maaarrghk!
1, May 3, 2010 at 10:51 am
Generally in agreement with Rodney.
“However, is the code that you mention Mespo a retrospective one? If not and if it can be proven that the glass was installed before the code came into effect, then our idiot does not have a case. Hooray!”
Are you in the construction business over there? Engineer, architect, contractor? We have the same type laws here. But it still might be some sort of negligence.
Sally, I’m not sure why the American Legal site is behaving strangely for you – it works fine for me. I was able to find that code section in about a minute with a keyword search. Given that it’s hidden in a section titled basically “Construction Site Safety Requirements,” I would have had a very hard time finding it in the paper copy of the Code that I’m staring at right now on my office bookshelf. (Yeah, the paper copy that costs about $200)
Overall, I agree with you, Sally. There’s a limit to how much we can protect people from themselves, and people should have the expectation that there is a degree of risk involved in walking down the sidewalk. You want to walk there, you are making the decision that you are taking on the risk that you may fall on the concrete and hit your head, or that a branch might fall off a city-maintained parkway tree.
If I’m right in seeing that the windows’ sills are well up off the sidewalk, then this drunk individual probably exceeded the limits of what most of us would think would be “reasonable protection of passers by.” We don’t put padding on steel or concrete lamp posts to protect drunks who try to punch their husbands, miss, and connect with the lamp post, and fracture the bones in their hands. Nor do we put padding on lamp posts to protect kids riding bikes or, oh, say, skate boarding on sidewalks, er… not that I know anything about what it’s like to skateboard into a hard metal post at a good speed. Nope, not me. Never.
mespo: You say that you represented someone who was injured when “glass fell from a shop window.” If the glass fell out of the window, then it really doesn’t matter if it was tempered, laminated, annealed or standard glass – if the pane was big enough, the weight of a big chunk of anything heavy hitting you could cause injuries. Any situation where chunks of your building fall off under normal weather conditions is bad for those around the building and bad for you as the building owner.
My first reaction was “There’s a hair salon with a plate glass window next to Leona’s? Man, the old neighborhood really has changed.” As an old Medusa’s kid, I can tell you that 20 years ago, plate glass windows didn’t last long in that area. Leona’s was treated reasonably well, but just about anyone else didn’t leave a lot of glass exposed. For all the “drunken yuppies” in the area now, things were a lot rougher in the 80s. Oh, wait, that means I was hanging out around there TWENTY-FIVE years ago. Crap, I really am old. ;^)
I just had a look at the facade on Google Street View. I can’t make it out terribly clearly, but it looks like the windows of the salon end roughly 30″ above the sidewalk. That’s important in this case. I’m not going to take the time to slog through the code right now, but the general rule of thumb is that when the window extends below 24″ above the sidewalk, then it needs to be tempered (aka “safety”) glass. If I’m seeing the condition correctly, then it took some effort for Ms. Einstein to put herself through this window with it’s relatively high sill.
I am not rendering any professional opinion here, but it’s entirely possible that the salon’s windows did minimally comply with the Chicago Building Code because of the height of the window sill.
OK, I couldn’t resist digging in the code:
In the section confusingly titled, “SAFEGUARDS DURING CONSTRUCTION – BUILDING SAFETY REQUIREMENTS” is the critical section of the code that covers completed buildings, not just ones under construction! (Gosh, how I love the Chicago Building Code! It brings such joy to my life almost every day! hooray.)
“13-124-350 Safety glazing materials – Required – Where.
All glazed doors, and any glazed panel more than 18 inches in width immediately adjacent to any door wherein the sill of such glazed panel is less than 24 inches above the floor shall be considered “hazardous locations” and shall be glazed with safety glazing materials. Glazed doors shall include, among others, the following: sliding glass doors, storm doors, shower doors and bathtub enclosures.”
A strict reading of this would say that safety glazing is ONLY required in a window that is within 18 of the side of a door AND has a sill less than 24″ from the floor. In practice, the permit reviewers that I’ve dealt with will extend that requirement to any exterior window (or interior window in a commercial building) that has a sill less than 24″ from the floor/sidewalk/exterior grade.
Sally:
I had a terrible case where a mentally handicapped person walking down a city street was horribly injured when non-conforming glass fell from a shop window. The owner had been cited five times. I get annoyed too, but I understand the need for the policy on business owners who place profits above safety.
Mespo….
I just get annoyed with people blaming everyone else for their stupidity.
In my tiny town, there is a strip of old businesses that are no longer in use. The glass is so old, that one could simply push on it with their hand and break it. And one of the three businesses on that strip is a restaurant/bar. So we have a lot of drunks walking up and down that little strip. And no one has ever fallen through glass. One of the building windows even has broken glass that has been duct taped together. I walk up that strip daily with my kids (the post office is on the strip) and my kids watch themselves walk by in, the glass. Kids ride bikes, skateboards, pull each other in wagons, run up and down it daily. And no one has ever been injured by them. I can even post pictures of these buildings, the condition of a few of them is appalling.
Back to the story on topic….Yes, the business should have safety glass, no doubt. And if they are at fault, all I believe she should get is medical costs covered. $50,000 from each party she is suing is outrageous. The loss at the hospital is not the hospitals fault. She should have given her stuff to her husband. Anyone could have taken it.
Sally:
Your outrage is understandable, if misplaced. Were this a woman who fell holding her infant who was grievously injured by the nonconforming glass, I suspect your sentiments would be entirely different. In each case, the negligence of the land owner/occupier was the same; only the victim differed. From a public policy standpoint, the law encourages compliance and discourages negligence as defined here by refusal to replace the offending glass. The victim’s negligence, if any, is covered by the State’s comparative negligence law which reduces her damages by her pro rata negligence. I see this as a win-win for society since it encourages compliance, discounts the damages for the allegedly negligent pedestrian, and since the salon owner can indeed recover for the property damage he suffered.
It’s the woman’s own fault that she fell through the window. She’s the one who got drunk and she’s the one who got angry and tried to kick her husband.
Where is the personal responsibiity here? What if she tried to kicke her husband and fell into the street and broke her leg? Should she have sued the city for failure to realize that there are drunk idiots out there that need a guardrail to prevent them from falling into the street?
While she’s at it, she should sue the restaurant, their alcohol supplier, and the city for allowing the restaurant to have a beer/wine/liqour license. And also, sue everyone who voted for those in office that had the power to give restaurants such licenses. Because it’s definitely everyone else’s fault that she is a drunk idiot with a bad temper.
I hope the business counter sues for damage to their business and also for the lost monies due to cancelled appointments.
I tried to look up building codes, I came up with this site… When you click on glass and glazing, nothing really comes up, besides a disclaimer and a phone number.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagobuilding/buildingcodeandrelatedexcerptsofthemunic?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagobuilding_il
Lot’s of people wear more than one pair of earrings on their earlobes or up the side.
What if a child riding a bicycle or skateboarding or rollerblading had smashed into the window? Oh, I know they aren’t supposed to be on the sidewalk, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do it.
Also, I’ve had stuff “lost” at the hospital, not that one.
i noticed the url says ‘failing through the window’ :3
I used to own a bookstore about 1-1/2 blocks from the salon location on Sheffield Ave. My store had two large display windows on the front of the building, and we were advised by the city that the glass in the windows should be replaced by safety glass (everyone in the neighborhood received such a notice). I don’t remember whether this was a code requirement or just a suggestion, but I can’t imagine the city sending out a notice for a “suggestion.” Even so, I don’t remember but one business (a corner bar) that actually had the glass replaced, at least while I was there.
That neighborhood is full of upper-income yuppies who drink too much and are basically snotty twits, but that doesn’t excuse the salon’s not being code compliant or her jewelry or Blackberry’s being “lost” by the hospital. Like it or not, she may indeed have a case.
I do have a question about her missing jewelry, however. She said she had to remove her jewelry for an MRI – a pair of diamond earrings, three pairs of diamond studs and other jewelry. If she had to remove this jewelry for the MRI, and was presumably wearing the diamond earrings in her ear lobes, where was she wearing the other pairs of studs? Sounds kinky.
A “grandfathered” plate glass window … wouldn’t that be hilarious!
Generally in agreement with Rodney.
However, is the code that you mention Mespo a retrospective one? If not and if it can be proven that the glass was installed before the code came into effect, then our idiot does not have a case. Hooray!
She should sue her parents for giving birth to an idiot.
As crazy as it sounds, Ms. Shaker may have a point if the window glass was not up to code. We can check with rafflaw, but I think this would constitute negligence per se in Illinois and entitle her to a instruction to the jury that the saloon was negligent as a matter of law. She has credibility problems of course, not the least of which is her claim that her $6000 worth of her jewelery was stolen at the hospital. That said, she has significant injures that the code provision was arguably designed to prevent. Otherwise, why have the provision in the first place if not to protect folks falling through it? In a comparative negligence state like Illinois, I would have taken the case, too.