Erica Roberts v. State of Illinois

OPINION

MCGLYNN, J.

The Claimant, Erica Roberts, as Special Representative for the Estate of Bruce H. Roberts, alleges on December 24, 2010, Respondent breached its duty to provide Mr. Roberts with reasonably safe work conditions and failed to supervise, train, and provide adequate safety equipment causing him to be injured. This Complaint seeks $100,000 in damages. Respondent alleges that Mr. Roberts was contributorily negligent. Mr. Roberts died of unrelated causes before trial; his deposition testimony was admitted at the hearing.

Mr. Roberts sustained injuries when a tire he was changing exploded, severely injuring his hands and knee at Menard Prison. Mr. Roberts was incarcerated at Menard. Mr. William Gross, who was the Maintenance Equipment Operator, hired Mr. Roberts. At the time of the occurrence, Mr. Roberts was the primary tractor driver and highest paid prison employee in Mr. Gross’ department. By all accounts Mr. Roberts was a diligent, well-regarded employee.

On December 23, 2010, City of Chester workers drove a recycling trailer to Menard and had a flat tire. Mr. Gross told the city workers to leave the trailer and said he would take the tire off and see if he could fix it. Ordinarily Mr. Gross would instruct his mechanics to fix tires.

Mr. Gross did not work on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2010, the day of the accident. Mr. Brent Taylor was the contractual maintenance operator who filled in for Mr. Gross. Mr. Taylor testified that on December 23, 2010, Mr. Gross asked Mr. Taylor to have Mr. Roberts change the tire. The next day Mr. Taylor instructed Mr. Roberts to change the tire. Likewise, Mr. Roberts testified that Mr. Taylor instructed Mr. Roberts to change the tire in the Menard Garage. Mr. Taylor then left the Garage to do paperwork in another building.

While Mr. Roberts was attempting to inflate the tire, it exploded. Mr. Roberts had no formal training regarding tires.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gross admitted that they provided no instructions nor training to Mr. Roberts as to how to safely inflate/change a trailer tire. Mr. Gross admitted that the written safety training form provided no instruction on how to change a tire. Mr. Taylor admitted that he did not supervise Mr. Roberts; rather, he was in a different building doing paperwork. Mr. Gross testified that he had experience with tires exploding and that he had constructed a “tire cage” to [*139] provide protection to workers from exploding tires. Mr. Roberts testified that there was no tire cage in the building on that day but he learned later of its existence. Mr. Gross and Mr. Taylor testified that they did not instruct Mr. Roberts as to the use of the tire cage, nor did they ensure its availability for him to use. Obviously, the Respondent provided the tire which exploded.

Mr. Roberts testified further in his deposition that he recalled speaking with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gross after the incident while in the infirmary and that Mr. Gross said the tire might have been a half size different or the rim was different or there was something just different about the tire.

Mr. Roberts was taken by ambulance to Chester Memorial Hospital and transferred to St. Louis University Hospital for surgery. Mr. Roberts sustained a right open, comminuted fracture of the patella with displacement of fragment, a right displaced distal radius fracture, a right ulna fracture, multiple lacerations on extremities, and a comminuted fracture of the left mid shaft of the ulna with displacement.

The operative procedures included open reduction internal fixation of the left ulna and patella, partial patellectomy, primary patellar tendon repair, and casting. Upon discharge from St. Louis University Hospital, Mr. Roberts spent two months in traction rehabilitating in the prison infirmary.

Mr. Roberts testified that after the incident he could no longer run, wrestle around with his grandson, or open a Coke. He had to climb stairs one at a time. Unlevel ground really bothered him, and it felt like he was constantly walking on ice. He also fell a lot, almost falling five to six times per day. At the time the deposition was taken, Mr. Roberts had actually fallen 20 times. He used a cane, although it embarrassed him, and his right kneecap was a lot higher than his left. It bent in the wrong place and the knee brace made the pain worse. Mr. Roberts testified his right wrist still bothered him, though his left wrist was not that bad unless he hit it up against something and struck the metal.

Ms. Erica Roberts testified that she is Mr. Robert’s daughter. Before the incident on December 24, 2010, Mr. Roberts was active and always doing something. You would not catch him sitting down. He rode his bike because he did not have a license. He took care of his grandson, Jeremiah, and worked on cars. He did not have a main job, but he could pretty much do anything. After the incident, Mr. Roberts limped around and could not ride his bike because he could not get his knee going. If he did, he could not land on it because he would just fall over. Ms. Roberts witnessed Mr. Roberts fall while walking. His knee went out. This is when he started using a cane. She testified that when Jeremiah was about three or four, Mr. Roberts was kneeling down to play with him when Jeremiah ran into him and knocked him over like it was nothing.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The State of Illinois owes a duty to inmates to provide them with reasonably safe conditions under which to work. Reddock v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 611, 613 (1978). This includes a duty of supervision and a duty to provide inmates with adequate work tools. Peterson v. State, 45 [*140] Ill. Ct. Cl. 260, 262 (1992). “Claimant bears the burden of proving, by preponderance of the evidence, that the State breached its duty of care, that he was free of contributory negligence, and that the negligence of the State of Illinois was the proximate cause of his injury.” Reddock, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 613.

Respondent breached its duty to provide Mr. Roberts with reasonably safe working conditions by failing to supervise him and failing to provide him with adequate safety precautions and training. No supervisor was present when Mr. Roberts changed the tire, nor could Mr. Taylor, the acting supervisor, see Mr. Roberts changing the tire. See Francis v. State, 46 Ill. Ct. Cl. 244, 250 (1994) (State breached its duty of care where supervisor was not present and could not see inmate-worker performing job duties). Furthermore, Respondent did not provide any instruction on the safe and proper way to change a tire. Respondent could not reasonably rely on Mr. Roberts’ prior experience as a substitute for training. Mr. Gross conducted an informal interview with Mr. Roberts during which Mr. Gross has no recollection of even discussing Mr. Roberts’ experience with changing tires. Additionally, Mr. Gross testified that, aside from tractor training, all other training was limited to the training document (Exhibit 4), the interview, and oral instruction. The training document makes no mention of the correct way to change a tire and oral instruction is inadequate given the potential for harm associated with changing a tire. See Davis v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 214, 218 (1998) (“[O]rally giving inmates a list of do’s and don’ts is a poor substitute for proper training and written instructions on using machinery which has the capability of being dangerous to life and limb.”). Furthermore, Respondent’s agents did not instruct Mr. Roberts to use a tire cage or, at the very least, provide him with one.

Further, Respondent’s agents’ negligence proximately caused Mr. Roberts’ injuries. Proximate cause requires proof of both “cause in fact” and “legal cause.” Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 343, 354 (1992). “Cause in fact” examines whether Respondent’s negligence was a material and substantial factor in producing the harm, while “legal cause” examines whether the injury was foreseeable. Knauerhaze v. Nelson, 361 Ill. App. 3d 538, 549 (2005). Mr. Roberts was injured when the tire exploded, and the force of the impact caused him multiple serious injuries. If Mr. Roberts had used a tire cage, the explosion would have been contained. Therefore, Respondent’s negligence was a cause in fact of Mr. Roberts’ injuries.

Additionally, Respondent could have foreseen the possibility of a tire explosion. Mr. Gross testified he had witnessed a tire explosion at Menard and Mr. Taylor was aware that tire cages were used to limit the effects of a tire explosion. Mr. Gross built the tire cage at Menard and knew it was either in the garage or in the barn but did no relay any instructions for its use to Mr. Taylor when assigning the task to Mr. Roberts. Significantly, Mr. Gross testified that the tire explosion he experienced at Menard was a “very scary situation.” Thus, Claimant has established that Respondent’s agents’ negligence in failing to provide Mr. Roberts with adequate training, supervision or safety equipment proximately caused Mr. Roberts’ injuries.

Further, Mr. Roberts was free from contributory negligence. The evidence shows Mr. Taylor instructed Mr. Roberts to change the tire and Mr. Roberts did not take up the task on his own accord. Although Mr. Gross testified that he did not instruct anyone to change the tire, both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Taylor testified that Mr. Roberts was acting under direction from a [*141] supervisor. Mr. Roberts did not have a tire cage available when he was assigned the task at issue, nor was he even knowledgeable as to where to find a tire cage. (Exhibit 5, 25:23-24). This Court has recognized that a prisoner is not ordinarily free to refuse to perform a task even if he considers the conditions unsafe, because he “does not have the liberty of choice available to a person in private industry and must work under conditions that are assigned to him.” Reddock, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 614. Given the nature of the prison system and the risk of losing his work privileges, Mr. Roberts was not negligent in following directions from authority. Under these circumstances, the Court finds Mr. Roberts was not contributorily negligent.

The magnitude of Mr. Roberts’ injuries is undeniable. The testimony and medical records show Mr. Roberts sustained serious injuries to multiple limbs which required surgeries and a lengthy recovery. Mr. Roberts’ severity of pain and suffering following the explosion is evident from the very nature of the injuries.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Claimant is entitled to the maximum award of $100,000.00.