Kevin Currie v. Illinois Department of Corrections

OPINION

Storino, J.

Claimant filed his complaint for a personal injury he suffered while at the Dixon Correctional Center. A hearing was held before the assigned commissioner on March 8, 2011.

Claimant appeared pro se and Respondent was represented by the Attorney General's office.

I. Background

Claimant filed his Complaint on January 10, 2010, arising out of an incident that occurred on April 1, 2005. Claimant alleges in his Complaint that he was working in the dayroom of Housing Unit #26 and one of the dayroom windows fell and struck his head and shoulders.

Claimant asserts that the Respondent owes him a duty to provide a reasonably safe environment and that the window falling on him breached said duty. Claimant alleges that he suffered a serious head injury as well as injury to his hand and shoulder. Claimant asserts that he lost 488 [*258] days of work assignment which equals $240 in lost wages. He claims that he suffers from recurrent headaches that will cause him future lost wages in his occupation as a car detailer in the amount of $30,000 to $40,000. Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $50,000.

The Respondent filed its Rule 55 Departmental Report on April 19, 2007. The Departmental Report indicates that Claimant filed a grievance on July 12, 2005. The Departmental Report also contains medical records from the treatment received by Claimant.

At the hearing held on March 8, 2011, Claimant testified that on April 1, 2005, he was performing janitorial services in Housing Unit #26 in Dixon CC. He was cleaning in the dayroom and a window panel about 3 feet by 5 feet fell out and struck Claimant. Claimant stated that a Corrections Officer in tower observed the window fall and instructed Claimant to stay down. Claimant stated that he received help and was taken to the Health Care Unit where he received medical treatment. The Departmental Report contains the medical records which indicate cuts and abrasions, but no broken bones. Claimant testified that he could not work for 488 days.

On cross examination, Claimant agreed his injuries consisted of some abrasions but no stitches. He testified that the day after his injury complained of head, shoulder and right arm pain for which x-rays were taken. Claimant also subsequently complained of headaches but no neurological problems were found. On cross-examination, Claimant conceded that he could work and that no medical provider stated that he suffered any permanent injury.

II. Analysis

Under Illinois law, the State owes a duty to prison inmates to provide reasonably safe conditions. Reddock v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 611 (1978). The law is well established that generally for a Claimant to recover for negligence, he must prove that Respondent had actual or [*259] constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition. McMullen v. State, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137, 142 (1995). Although it has not been pleaded, the Claimant's evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing dictates that this claim proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the notice rule and is to be applied when Respondent fails to present evidence sufficient to rebut evidence of its exclusive care and control of an instrumentality or when Respondent fails to produce evidence to support the Respondent's exercise of proper care under the circumstances of record. Enyart v. State, 57 Ill. Ct. Cl. 202, 205 (2004).

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, Claimant must show that the instrumentality which injured him was under the exclusive control of Respondent, and not under his control in any way. Daniels v. State, 40 Ill.Ct.Cl. 64, 70 (1988). When an injury is caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of Respondent, and when the injury is one that would not occur in the ordinary course of things had the Respondent exercised proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence that the accident arose from the Respondent's want of due care.

Thornton v. State, 45, Ill.Ct.Cl. 272, 275 (1993).

In this case, there is no testimony from Respondent to contradict Claimant's testimony that the window fell and injured Claimant, at no fault of Claimant. Such uncontroverted evidence supports Claimant's contention that Respondent failed to maintain the facility in a reasonably safe condition. It is also not disputed that the window was under the exclusive control of Respondent and not, in any way, under the control of Claimant. Respondent merely disputed the measure of Claimant's damages. Respondent failed to present any evidence sufficient to rebut evidence of its exclusive care and control of the window. Respondent also failed to produce evidence to support the Respondent's exercise of proper care under the facts of [*260] the case. As such, this Court finds that a reasonable inference may be made that the instant accident, which was the cause of Claimant's injuries, arose from the Respondent's want of due care, thereby imposing liability on behalf of Respondent.

Accordingly, Claimant is entitled to recover for his injuries. Since Claimant received medical care at no personal costs due to being a prisoner of the State there are no medical specials to be awarded. Claimant's claim of lost wages is not supported by the evidence.

Claimant future pain and suffering is not supported by medical records or testimony. The sole element of damages that is supported by the evidence and compensable in this case is the pain and suffering Claimant suffered due to the window falling on him. The record indicates Claimant suffered minor scrapes and abrasions but did not require stitches. Claimant did complain later of headaches but no evidence connected the later headaches to the incident. As such Claimant shall be awarded $500.00, for his injuries.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimants' claim is granted and Claimant is awarded $500.00.