Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Thearity White v. State of Illinois

39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 175 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1987-06-22 No. 85-CC-2570
Disposition: (No. 85-CC-2570-Claimant awarded $3,000.00.) Award: $3,000.00 Agency: Illinois Department of Corrections
Cite as: Thearity White v. State of Illinois, 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 175 (1987)
General Court of Claims 39 awarded 1980s Thearity White v. State of Illinois 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 175 1987-06-22 (No. 85-CC-2570-Claimant awarded $3,000.00.) /opinions/v39-p0270-1/

THEARITY WHITE, Claimant, u. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a prisoner at Stateville Correctional Center, suffered a mangled finger when a manhole cover fell on it due to an unsafe hook and lack of safety blocks provided by his supervisor. The court found the State breached its duty to provide safe tools and procedures and awarded $3,000 for pain and suffering and loss of use.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: Hughes v. State (1984), 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 251

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

Headnotes

  1. NEIL F. HARTLGAN, Attorney General (CLAIRE E. TAYLOR, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
  2. PRISONERSA N D INtams-inmate’s finger crushed by manhole cmerState negligent-award granted. An inmate of a correctional center was granted an award for the injuries sustained when his finger was crushed under a manhole cover while he was working with a crew inspecting manholes, since the State breached its duty to provide safe tools and working procedures by failing to provide blocks to slip under the covers when they were lifted.

Claimant, a former resident of the Stateville Correctional Center, now residing at the Danville Correctional Center, has brought this action for personal injuries sustained by him on February 26, 1985, on the Stateville grounds when a manhole cover fell on his left middle finger.

The Claimant and two other residents were on a work crew which had the daily duty of lifting various manhole covers (150 to 200 pounds each) in order to inspect whatever was below the covers. Generally, the covers were lifted by a hook which would enter a hole in the covers and grip the reverse side. However, some new covers had been installed in which the hole did not go through. The supervisor of the Claimant’s work crew manufactured a hook to lift these new covers. The Claimant’s job was to grasp the cover as it was lifted and slide it aside as it was hanging on the hook. On the occasion of the injury, the new hook slipped, and the [*176] cover dropped on the Claimant’s left middle finger trapping it between the edge of the manhole and the cover. The finger was badly mangled. No bones were broken, but at the time of the hearing some loss of use was evident. Claimant is right-handed.

Testimony from all three members of the work crew was that the crew’s supervisor made a hook to lift the new manhole covers and ordered its use. No blocks were provided to slip under the lifted cover, so the Claimant had to slip his hands under the cover. The Respondent had a duty to provide safe tools and safe working procedures. This Court finds that both duties were breached.

This Court finds that the Claimant did suffer great pain as a result of the accident and did suffer some permanent damage to his left middle finger, In Hughes 2). State (1984),37 Ill. Ct. C1.251, a prisoner mangled and broke the bones in three fingers when a block of ice fell on them. He had substantial permanent loss of use of one finger and some permanent loss of use of another finger, with further surgery needed. He was awarded $9,000 by this Court for his pain and suffering and loss of use.

Therefore, we award the Claimant $3,000 for pain and suffering and loss of use.

Official volume 39 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1987 – July 1, 1986–June 30, 1987)  ·  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.