William Ciccia v. Illinois Department of Corrections

WILLIAM CICCIA, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Opinionfiled March 12, 1999

WILLIAM CICCIA, pro se.

JIM RYAN, Attorney General (SERGE J. ADAM, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

PRISONERS AND INMATES-television damaged by electrical surge-award grunted Damages were awarded for the depreciated value of an inmate's television set which incurred damage during an electrical surge at a correctional center, since the State admitted that an electrical malfunction had caused damage to a number of inmates' appliances and it raised no defense to liability but the inmate's request to be compensated for interest and his time spent pursuing the claim were rejected by-the Court. [*295]

I

~ i Ciccia v. State 295

I OPINION

i EPSTEIN, J. Claimant William Ciccia, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)brought this claim seeking $332 for damage to his television set allegedly caused

I

by an electrical surge in the Dixon Correctional Center (“Dixon”)on March 4,1993, which was allegedly caused by defective wiring. Claimant also claims lost interest.

We previously denied both parties’ cross-motions for ~ summary judgment (order of January 13, 1995), and re

I

manded this case for an evidentiary hearing, which was I ultimately held by our former Commissioner Johnson,

I

I who retired without submitting a report on this claim.

I

1.

The Court, accordingly, has reviewed in detail the record of this claim de novo.

Analysis

I

I Claimant alleges that his television set was damaged due to an electrical surge on March 4,1993, which was es

I

sentially a recurrence of a similar problem that had oci curred weeks earlier (on February 13, 1993). Although

I

IDOC makes an effort to avoid culpability for the surge, we i are constrained to find that IDOC’s staff admission that j

I

there was an “electrical malfunction” in housing unit 29 at Dixon at 5 1 0 p.m. on March 4, 1993, and that that mali i function “caused electrical damage” to appliances in a number of enumerated cells, including cell 55 of inmate i Ciccia and his “RCA 13 in. color T.V. model no. E13143HN serial no. 015425133” (See, grievance report, March 5,

I

1993, Dixon C.C., concurred in by Odie Washington, DiI rector, IDOC) to fairly end the argument over liability.

I

I We reach out to observe, however, that this kind of electrical “surge” claim finds great disfavor in this Court~ not only because the proximate cause element is ordinarily

I

I

i [*296] 296 51 Ill. Ct. C1. difficult to prove without expert testimony (which is usually unavailable to IDOC inmates), but also because injury that is truly caused by electrical “surges” is readily avoidable by the owner of the television set or other appliance by technology that is available and at costs that are hardly unreasonable: surge protectors. Such devices are so well known that the failure to have one protecting sensitive electronic appliances-particularly in institutional situations where numerous Factors can, and foreseeably will, affect ,the electrical supply may well constitute negligence that will dminish or kill a claim.

In this case, that defense has not been raised by the Respondent, and the Court is not persuaded to raise it on our own motion, because the record reflects that IDOC personnel had confirmed that the March 4 , 1993 “electncal malfunction” had caused damage to surge protectors in other inmates’ cells. With ,that fact of record, and with the trial in this case long over, the Court will not consider this unraised and potentially disputed issue.

This brings us to the highly contested matter of damages in this case. Claimant has shown that his original purchase price for the television was $218.90, approximately 2 1/3 years before the incident (November 3, 1990). IDOC had taken the administrative position that the property should be depreciated at 20% per year, which Claimant had accepted, yielding a depreciated value of $116.02 by Claimant’s calculation. The Court will adopt that depreciated value as a fair measure of the Claimant’s loss. , However, we inust and will reject out of hand the Claimant’s requests for interest, which amounts to prejudgment interest on a tort claim, which is not allowable in this Court, and we also flatly reject Claimant’s claim for his time in pursuing this claim, which is equally noncompensable under the applicable laws.

. I

i

I

I

I

[*297] R & G, Inc. v. Dept. of Trans. 297

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds liability against the Respondent for damages to Claimant's television. Claimant William Ciccia is awarded the sum of $116.02 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.