GREGORY KIMBLE v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2002)

ORDER

This personal property damages claim, which arises out of the destruction of claimant's television set, which he alleges was caused by electrical problems at the Department of Corrections (IDOC) facility where claimant was incarcerated. This claim is before us after a hearing before our commissioner for final determination.

At trial, the Claimant testified that on the day he lost his television set, it was raining and four-five televisions owned by inmates, including his, went out at the same time, which he ascribes to a power surge. Claimant duly filed a grievance, seeking compensation for his television, which he exhausted in the IDOC procedures. The Grievance Report, reflected the findings of the IDOC electricians, who found a corroded neutral line that they believed was capable of permitting or causing power surges or shorts that could destroy electrical appliances and that probably did in this case.

This court has considered many cases of IDOC inmates claiming damage to their electronic equipment, particularly televisions, due to power surges and shorts. These cases are ordinarily quite difficult for inmate claimants to prove, and many of the cases have turned on the presence or absence of fault on the part of IDOC.

In Pughsley v. State, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 284 (1999) (Patchett, J.), this court denied a claim based on an alleged power surge caused by the wrongful act of another inmate who had tampered with an electrical outlet. That claim failed due to an absence of proof that IDOC or its agents were negligent. Pughsley reiterated that the State is not a guarantor of the quality or reliability of electric power to inmates cells, and absent some negligent or wrongful act that causes damage, IDOC is not liable for injuries caused by defective electrical power.

A slightly different situation was presented in Bolden v. State, 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 191 (1999), where the Claimant contended that the damage was caused by another inmate placing live electrical wires together that were in plain view and were known by IDOC staff to present a problem. The gist of that claim was IDOC's alleged negligence in allowing inmate occupancy of a cell in which such electrical problems were known to exist. This court denied the claim because there was no showing that IDOC was negligent, and the true cause was the misconduct of other inmates.

In the case at bar, liability is predicated on the theory that the electrical system in the cellhouse where claimant was housed was in a state of poor repair, as revealed by the conclusion of IDOC's electrician that he found a corroded neutral which caused power fluctuations that were severe enough to burn up a motor. The electrician indicated that the corrosion had been caused by a water drip into an electrical box. However, no evidence was produced suggesting that IDOC knew of the corroded terminal prior to the investigation that was launched after the power surges were reported.

In Jackson v. State, 45 Ill.Ct.Cl. 314, 317 (1992), and its predecessor Newsome v. State, 38 Ill.Ct.Cl. 299 (1986), this court awarded damages for destruction of inmate property that was found to be caused by the failure to facilities in the exclusive control of IDOC. Those decisions were based upon a finding of causation, a finding that the causing instrumentality was under IDOC's exclusive control, and that IDOC knew or should have known of the defective condition before the injury.

This cause falls under the Jackson and Newsome line of decisions rather than the Pughsley and Bolden line of cases.

In this case there is no showing by the Respondent, nor any inference arising from the undisputed facts, that the damage to Claimant's television -- or the electrical problems in the facility -- were in any way caused or exacerbated by acts of other inmates. In this case, because of the evidence of the electrician's observations and opinions, there is adequate proof of the electrical cause of the damage.

That takes the analysis to the issue fault, if any, for the defective condition of the electrical wiring in IDOC's facility, which takes us, in terms of precedent, to the Jackson-Newsome line of decisions.

In both Jackson and Newsome, supra the loss was caused by facilities under the exclusive care and management of IDOC, and by circumstances that in the ordinary course of events would not have occurred if IDOC had exercised proper management and maintenance of the facilities in its exclusive control. Also see Wassinger v. State, 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 68 (1988), and Childress v. State, 37 Ill.Ct.Cl. 269 (1985).

In Wassinger, this court specifically applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to award damages to an inmates injured when a toilet stool broke off the wall, shattered and seriously injured the inmate. In Childress, this court endorsed a theory of liability based upon proof that an instrumentality solely and totally under the control of the respondent caused damages to the Claimant, and that such proof constituted a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the respondent.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the failed instrumentality causing Claimant's damages was totally under the control of IDOC. The remaining issue is whether or not IDOC knew or should have known (i.e. was on constructive notice) of the defective wiring. In this case, unlike in some of the precedence where we have awarded damages on this theory, the defective condition is not in plain view or otherwise readily observable by IDOC personnel. It is at this point, that these kind of claims often flounder and die for lack of evidence.

However, in this case, the IDOC electrician has supplied the crucial evidence of constructive notice. As the grievance officer reported, the electrician stated that a previous problem of water dripping into the box had corroded a neutral that caused it to come loose. Accordingly, there is evidence in the record from which it could be reasonably inferred that IDOC had notice that the electrical facilities in this facility had previously developed problems of the same kind and from the same apparent cause as those in this case.

Claimant purchased the television set in about 1991 and the damage occurred in March 1994. Claimant recalled that the costs of the TV set was around $190.00 or $200.00. He testified that the TV would have lasted 6 or 7 more years. Under these circumstances, we find an appropriate award to be $130.00.

For the foregoing reasons, we find liability on the respondent, and award claimant Gregory Kimble the sum of $130.00 in full and final satisfaction of this claim.

EPSTEIN, J.