GREGORY D. WILKINS, Claimant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $140 reimbursement for a television that fell from a shelf in his cell. The court denied the claim, finding no evidence of negligence or notice of a defect.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Prisoners and Inmates-Shelf falls to ground breaking television, no evidence of negligence-denied
- Prisoners and Inmates-Negligence-Claimant produced no evidence of Respondent’s negligent failure to maintain its shelf that fell to the ground breaking Claimant’s television.
OPINION
Reid, J.
This claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary hearing conducted December 2, 2008 at Springfield, Illinois before Commissioner Murphy utilizing video teleconferencing.
Claimant Gregory D. Wilkins, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, while incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center on October 18, 2006 heard his television crash at 2:00 a.m. while he was sleeping. He filed a grievance on October 19, 2008 seeking replacement of his television or a reimbursement.
Claimant’s grievance was denied on November 12, 2006 and his appeal was denied on March 14, 2007. This Complaint was filed December 21, 2007 seeking $140.00 as reimbursement for his television.
Facts
Claimant testified at hearing that he was asleep in his cell at 2:00 a.m. on October 18, 2006 when he was awakened to a loud crash. He saw his television on the floor along with the shelf it had been placed upon. When he picked up everything, he noticed there were no screws to hold the shelf in place. He filed a grievance which was denied. According to Claimant, the grievance officer found staff negligent but still denied his claim. The counselor’s response to his grievance included a statement that the head maintenance assistant engineer found the shelf had been pulled off the wall due to excessive weight, yet the television alone is not heavy enough to cause the shelf to break.
[*297] Upon cross-examination, Claimant testified that he purchased the television in March, 2006 and he was in a locked cell when the television fell at 2:00 a.m.
Respondent called Mr. Bruce Hedden, Assistant Chief Engineer at Western Illinois Correctional Center, to testify. Mr. Hedden has been with the Illinois Department of Corrections for 19 years and has been in his current position since 1995. He has an Associate’s Degree in civil engineering and he is also a licensed plumber in Illinois. In October, 2006 Mr. Hedden was familiar with the furniture or fixtures in the inmates’ cells. His maintenance staff repairs those shelving units from time to time. They are approximately 8’ long, 5’ tall and 12 inches deep made of industrial grade flakeboard with plastic laminate attached to the walls with anchors installed during construction. The bolts go all the way through the wall. The shelves are intended for storing an inmate’s personal property, including television sets. Mr. Hedden is aware from other inmates that sometimes the shelves are used by inmates to get down from a top bunk, putting all their weight on the shelf. The shelving units are strong enough to support a standard issue television. When the facility began using double cells, they modified the shelves by adding a plywood shelf to the top of the unit. The television sets are 14½” so they extend beyond the shelving by 2½”. Mr. Hedden’s department performs its duties on a work order system. He did not have record of a work order to repair the shelving unit in Claimant’s cell prior to October 18, 2006.
Upon cross-examination by Claimant, Mr. Hedden testified that he was not the person who inspected Claimant’s cell and he does not know of any evidence of tampering nor a work order placed prior to October 18, 2006. Mr. Hedden’s staff reinstalled the shelf and he does not know who was in Claimant’s cell prior to Claimant.
According to claimant, when the shelf crashed, it held his television, a coffee cup and a soap dish.
Legal Analysis
Claimant seeks reimbursement for his television alleging Respondent’s negligence by failing to properly maintain its shelving sufficient to support the weight of his television. There is no issue whether Claimant owned the television. The only issue is whether Respondent can be held liable for the destruction of Claimant’s television when it fell during the early morning hours of October 18, 2006.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to know the exact cause of the shelving failure. Respondent’s witness, Mr.
Hedden, testified that the shelves are designed to support the weight of a television and that he had no notice of any defect in the shelves at issue. Although Mr. Hedden may be aware of particular types of misuse by some inmates [*298] when they apply body weight, that does not appear to be the issue here since the shelf was at a lower level, according to Claimant. Mr. Hedden testified that the shelf at issue failed due to excessive weight, and a television alone is not enough to cause the failure.
Claimant has produced no evidence of Respondent’s negligence by failing to maintain its shelving in his cell other than his observation that no screws were found. This alone is not enough to substantiate any claim of negligence, and particularly with no notice to Respondent of the alleged defect.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, claimant’s Complaint is denied.