JAMES Claimant, e. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, NEWSOME, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, sought compensation for the loss of a trial transcript when his cell toilet overflowed. The court found the loss was caused by the respondent's failure to maintain equipment and awarded $2,046.00.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General, for Respondent.
- PRISONERS AND INMATES-tOdet overflow in cell-transcript destroyedclaim allowed. The Court of Claims granted an award to an inmate of a correctional center for the cost of replacing the transcript of his trial, since the evidence established that the transcript was destroyed when the toilet in his cell overflowed, and the overflow was occasioned by the Respondent’s failure to maintain the plumbing system.
This matter comes before the Court as a result of a claim brought by Claimant, a resident of Stateville Correctional Center, for the loss of a trial transcript when the toilet in his cell overflowed.
On October 16, 1984, at approximately 8:OO a.m., Claimant states he left his cell in cell house B-East to go to work. He had no cellmate. He states his cell was in [*300] order when he left. On the day in question, between 1:30 and 2:OO p.m., he was notified to return to his cell because it was flooded. Sewage had come up out of the toilet bowl, water had run onto the floor of the cell and was one to two inches deep, and water had run out of the cell and flooded half the gallery. Claimant testified he had not left the cell with water running in the toilet bowl.
Claimant testified all the property he had stored on the floor beneath his bunk was ruined by the sewage, the principal loss being his trial transcript of 1,574 pages. A letter from a clerk of the circuit court of Cook County to Claimant states the cost of replacing this transcript would be $2,046.00. A copy of said letter was attached to the commissioner’s report.
Respondent called as a witness one Robert Oliver, a case work supervisor, who saw the flooding, called Claimant to return to his cell, and called for a plumber. He testified the flooding could have been caused by a pipe behind the toilet or could have been sabotage by other inmates.
Claimant testified he had no cellmate and that when he left the cell water was not running in the toilet bowl. Respondent offered no proof of inmates sabotaging the plumbing system.
It is the opinion of the Court that Claimant’s loss was occasioned by the facilities of Respondent and their failure to maintain their equipment.
Award is hereby entered in favor of Claimant in the amount of $2,046.00.