Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

I Daniel Lee Cooley v. State of Illinois

38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 223 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1986-03-11 No. 83-CC-2111
Disposition: (No. 83-CC-2111-Claim denied.) I Agency: Logan Correctional Center
Cite as: I Daniel Lee Cooley v. State of Illinois, 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 223 (1986)
General Court of Claims 38 denied 1980s I Daniel Lee Cooley v. State of Illinois 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 223 1986-03-11 (No. 83-CC-2111-Claim denied.) I /opinions/v38-p0305-1/

I DANIEL LEE COOLEY,Claimant, 2). THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. I I

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for a fractured nose suffered in a fight with another inmate at Logan Correctional Center. The court denied the claim, finding no state negligence and that the injury was caused by a third party, with claimant assuming the risk.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. PRISONERS AND INMATES - h j U l ' Y caused by another inmate-no negligence b y State-clnim denied. Award for personal injuries received by I
  2. Claimant during a fight in the weight room and boxing ring denied as , evidence established that injury was not caused by agent of the State, Claimant assumed the risk of injury in fighting with another inmate, and State was not negligent in not having supervisor constantly present in weight room.

This claim arises out of a fight which occurred both in and out of the boxing ring at Logan Correctional Center between two inmates. The Claimant suffered a I fractured nose as a result of the fight, which he claimed he was forced to engage in. His initial report to the correctional institution was that his nose was injured while lifting weights.

The weight room and the boxing room were combined in one room. Claimant claimed that while using the weights, he was forced to enter into a boxing match with another resident. After fighting outside of the ring, the Claimant put boxing gloves on and entered the ring to complete the fight. As a result of the fight, the Claimant claims that he suffered a fractured nose.

We see no basis for any award as a result of this claim. First of all, the cause of the Claimant's injury, by his own admission, was another resident. He can look to [*224] legal redress against the other resident to compensate him for his injuries. We see no basis on the facts established in the record to indicate any negligence on the part of the State. In addition, we do not find the evidence of the Claimant to be persuasive.

Even if this Court were to believe the Claimant’s version of the story, and to believe that the State was negligent in not having a supervisor constantly present in the weight room, we do not believe that the negligence, if it existed, would be the proximate cause for this injury.

It is well settled law in the State of Illinois that the tortious actions of a third party breaks the chain of negligence running between a tortfeasor and a victim.

There is no claim in this case that the resident who broke the Claimant’s nose was in any way fighting on behalf of the State of Illinois, or as a result of the State of Illinois’ direction or control.

In addition, it must be assumed that the Claimant assumed the risk totally, and was 100%contributorily negligent, by climbing into the ring and continuing to fight with a member of the boxing team who weighed in excess of 40 pounds more than the Claimant.

For all the reasons stated above, we deny this claim, and find for the Respondent.

Official volume 38 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1986 – July 1, 1985–June 30, 1986)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.