## Facts

- Timothy Galarnyk was a recurring guest at the Holiday Inn Mart Plaza in Chicago, operated by Hostmark Management, Inc.
- While staying at the hotel for a conference, Galarnyk entered the bathroom the next morning to take a shower.
- Before turning on the water, he looked into the bathtub and did not see a bath mat or any unusual condition.
- He turned on the water, adjusted the temperature, and let the shower run while he brushed his teeth.
- When he stepped into the tub, he slipped and fell backward, injuring his lower back and leg and damaging the bathroom wall.
- After the fall, Galarnyk noticed a white bath mat in the tub and testified that the front portion (about 12–14 inches) was loose and not secured.
- Galarnyk (and, in the underlying action, his wife) sued Hostmark for negligence (and loss of consortium) in Illinois state court, alleging the unsecured bath mat caused the fall; Hostmark removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court granted Hostmark summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence that Hostmark created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.
- On appeal, Galarnyk argued that Hostmark and/or its insurer offered to pay his medical bills, which he claimed indicated responsibility for the injury.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a defendant or its insurer offered to pay a plaintiff’s medical expenses is admissible to prove liability for the injury.
2. Whether, on the record presented, Galarnyk produced enough evidence of Hostmark’s negligence—particularly notice of a dangerous condition—to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Hostmark.
- The court held that offers or payments of medical expenses are not admissible to prove liability under Federal Rule of Evidence 409, so Galarnyk could not use those offers as an admission of fault.
- The court agreed that the remaining evidence did not create a triable fact question that Hostmark caused, knew of, or should have discovered a dangerous condition involving the bath mat before the accident.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a party furnished, offered, or promised to pay medical or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. (Fed. R. Evid. 409.)
- In an Illinois premises-liability negligence claim, the plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it in time to take reasonable corrective action.
- Constructive notice requires more than the occurrence of an accident; it generally requires evidence that the condition existed long enough, or occurred with enough frequency, that reasonable inspection would have discovered it.
- At summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present specific evidence supporting each required element; speculation about how the condition arose or how long it existed does not create a genuine dispute of material fact.
- When the primary negligence claim fails for lack of proof, a derivative loss-of-consortium claim fails as well.

## Conclusion

Because Rule 409 barred using Hostmark’s or its insurer’s medical-bill payment offers as proof of liability, and because Galarnyk otherwise lacked evidence that Hostmark created or had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition involving the bath mat, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Hostmark on the negligence claim and the related consortium claim.


Galarnyk v. Hostmark Management, Inc., 55 Fed. Appx. 763 (2003)