ALONZOJONES, Claimant, 2). THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Facility, suffered severe hand injuries while operating a table saw. The court found the State failed to provide safe working conditions, proper equipment, and sufficient training, and awarded $50,000.
Cases cited: Hammer v. State (1987), 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 173; Tucker v. State (1989), 42 Ill. Ct. Cl. 72; McGee v. State (1977), 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 326; Moore v. State (1951), 21 Ill. Ct. Cl. 282; White v. State (1987), 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 175; Burns v. State (1982), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 782; 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.
JAMES P. CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES, for Claimant.
R O L A N D W. BURRIS,Attorney General (S T E V E N S CHMALL, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
PRISONERS A N D INMATES-state owes duty to provide inmates with safe working conditions and proper safety equipment. The State owes a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to provide them with safe working conditions under which to perform their assigned work and to provide them with proper safety equipment to complete their assigned tasks.
SAME-negligenCe-inmate injured while operating table saw-State . liable. Where, prior to the Claimant inmate suffering a severe hand injury while operating a table saw pursuant to his job responsibilities within the prison, State personnel failed to regularly monitor or maintain the equipment, or advise the Claimant regarding the need to use an adjustment screw on the device to insure its stability, the State was liable for its failure to provide safe [*91] i'
I
working conditions and proper equipment and training for the Claimant, and he was awarded $50,000.
OPINION
J. PATCHETT, This cause comes before the Court upon a claim brought by Alonzo Jones, a 51-year-old inmate at the Stateville Correctional Facility. The Claimant suffered severe injuries to his left hand on July 31, 1986, while operating a table-saw pursuant to his job responsibilities within the institution. Claimant contends the State failed to inspect and maintain the table-saw involved, even though it had notice of its dangerous condition, and further, that the State failed to provide proper training to the inmates who operate the saw.
On the date of the incident, the Claimant was constructing new legs for a wooden desk. He had reported to [*92] the carpentry foreman, correctional employee Paul Bredesen. Mr. Bredesen and the Claimant discussed the Claimant’s plans to construct the legs. Mr. Bredesen then provided a number of dado blades to the Claimant. Dado blades are designed to cut grooves into wood at varying depths. When a closed-end groove is being created by these blades, the shield that normally protects the operator’s hands cannot be used because the hands are on the wood. The wood is stabilized during its movement over the dado blade by what is called a rip fence. The rip fence on the saw involved had a lever to lock it into place and also an adjustment screw. The Claimant testified that he was unaware of the adjustment screw.
Prior to the incident, the Claimant had extensive experience with table-saws beginning with classes he took in high school, This experience continued in cabinet and construction work prior to the time he was incarcerated.
The Claimant had used this particular saw hundreds of times and had made numerous dado cuts. On each occasion, he testified that he used the same technique which he employed on the date of the injury. Further, all the other personnel in the prison shop, including State employees, used the same method.
On the date in question, the Claimant had made 11 prior passes using the blade, and on the last pass the wood moved, causing his hand to be dragged across the blade. This resulted in extremely serious injuries to the Claimant’s left hand.
The State owes a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to provide them with safe working conditions under which to perform their assigned work. (Hammer v. State (1987),40 111. Ct. C1. 173.)Further, the State has a duty to provide inmates with proper safety equipment to complete [*93] their assigned tasks. (Tuckerv. State (1989), 42 Ill. Ct. C1. 72.) We feel that the State did not meet its duty with regard to the Claimant in this situation.
First of all, the inherent nature of the equipment rendered it extremely dangerous to any individual. Secondly, the rip fence on this saw required the adjustment of a screw to insure its stability. Repeated use of the saw would loosen the rip fence. The State’s failure to monitor the rip fence on a more regular schedule can be characterized as a contributing factor to this accident. It was only after the accident that an employee of the State commented to the Claimant about the need to use the adjustment screw.
It is the opinion of this Court that the State failed to provide the Claimant with safe working conditions and safe equipment, and failed to sufficiently instruct him in the proper operation of the woodworking equipment in question. This Court has consistently held that under such situations, there is liability on behalf of the State to the inmate who was injured. McGee v. State (1977), 31 111. Ct. C1. 326; Moore 0.State (1951), 21 111. Ct. Cl. 282; White v. State (1987), 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 175; Burns v. State (1982), 35 111. Ct. C1. 782; Hughes 0. State (1984), 37 111.
Ct. C1. 251.
For the reasons stated, we award this Claimant the sum of $50,000.[*94]