DAVID FAYSON 33179 v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

This cause is before the Court on a complaint filed by Mr. Fayson, a resident of the Illinois Department of Corrections. He seeks recovery for injuries he suffered when a window fell on him in his bed while at the Stateville Correctional Center (SCC).

Documents attached to the Complaint indicate that it occurred on January 23, 1998. The claim was filed January 29, 1999. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the day before the scheduled hearing.

The Respondent asserts in its Motion to Dismiss that claimant failed to file a Notice of Intent to Sue with the Court and Attorney General within one year of the injury as required by Section 22-1 of the Court of Claims Act. 705 ILCS 505/2201. Respondent cites Slepcevich v. State (1989), 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 197 for the proposition that the Court require strict compliance with the requirement.

Mr. Fayson filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss on or about October 26, 2000. He asserts he placed the Complaint in the designated mailbox at SCC on January 19, 1999. The SCC Mail Office forwarded the Complaint to the Court on January 21, 1999, which he alleges is shown by the mail log attached to the Response. He asserts that a Notice need not be filed if the Complaint is filed within one year of the injury. Mr. Fayson's Response includes references to several cases, and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237, which he says supports his position that the deadline upon which documents are due, ... is deemed to be the date the materials are placed in the mail. Fayson is basically alleging that the rule of law commonly referred to as the Mailbox Rule, applies to the statutory requirement of filing a Notice of Intent to Sue, or a Complaint, within one year of the injury.

The Claimant has attached a Legal Mail Card, purportedly indicating dates that certain mail from him was sent on by the Department of Corrections. It appears that the mail was allegedly mailed to the Court on 1/21/99; 1/27/99; 3/15/99; and 12/21/99. These dates are inconsistent with the Clerk of the Court's records. The Clerk's computer shows documents received from the claimant on 1/25/99; 1/29/99; and 7/26/00.

In addition, Mr. Fayson argued at the hearing before a Commissioner of this Court that the Department of Corrections impeded his ability to file earlier because it did not render a final administrative decision until April 30, 1999. Respondent replied that there was no requirement to exhaust grievances based on personal injury prior to filing to the Court. There is a requirement to exhaust remedies, but there is no requirement that those remedies must be finally realized prior to filing a claim.

The cases cited by Mr. Fayson do not involve the statute in question. Neither the Claimant nor the Respondent has cited the case of McCord v. State of Illinois (1990) 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 166. In the McCord case we held that former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12 and former statutory section of Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 1, Section 1026, both regarding filing by mail, applied to statutory notice requirements in the Court of Claims. Applying the current rules and statutory sections regarding similar issues, it is clear that Mr. Fayson complied with the jurisdictional requirements. The Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Since the Motion to Dismiss was filed the day before the hearing, the hearing continued as scheduled. We therefore proceed to decide the case.

The Facts

Claimant testified that early in the morning of January 23, 1998, he was sleeping in his dorm room at SCC. The window over his bed did not have any handles; (meaning braces or joints connecting to the window frame), to hold the window in place. He would tear sheets or use string to hold the window in place. It was a heavy window with steel mesh inside the glass. The string was considered contraband, so a correctional officer could confiscate it, or discipline him for possession of contraband. On the night in question he did not tie up the window because he was concerned that a correctional officer might discipline him.

The window has been in disrepair for several years. At about four or five a.m., the window fell on Claimant. He stated that the window is two or three feet above his bed. He estimated the window to be three or four feet square and weighing about 100 pounds. He stated that the window would not lock shut because it was broken. He was in the cell for four months and the condition of the window was the same. He discussed the condition with officers on a regular basis.

After the window hit his chin, he received two stitches on the inside of his lip, and two on his gum. He stated that the window pushed in his lower teeth causing him to have an over-bite. He missed three days of work.

Dr. Kurian, the physician at SCC, testified that he examined the Claimant's medical records. The records indicated that Claimant had a two centimeter laceration to his chin located in the lower lip. He received five sutures, and was treated with an antibiotic. The sutures were removed on January 30, 1998, and there was not any further follow-up. Dr. Kurian did not believe Claimant suffered from any other problems because of the incident. The Inmate Injury Report states that there was a large amount of blood loss evident. Teeth in place-none loosened.

The Departmental Report was incomplete and insufficient to provide any assistance in the determination of the condition of the window at the time of the injury. There is a Memorandum dated December 8, 1998, which indicates that the window pane glass had been replaced, and the writer noticed that the window is tied up securely to prevent it from droping (sic) out of its frame. There are no Incident Reports provided by any personnel. A decision by the Administrative Review Board, dated April 30, 1999, denies any relief, as inmate's concerns have been addressed by [SCC]. The decision does not reference how the concerns were addressed, and Respondent does not offer any evidence to this issue.

The Law

Claimant has the burden to establish that Respondent breached a duty of care to Claimant and that such breach was the proximate cause of the injuries to Claimant. The Respondent owes a duty to inmates to provide reasonably safe conditions. DeWitt v. State (1991), 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254. The records establish that Claimant suffered personal injuries caused by a window that fell on him. Claimant's undisputed testimony establishes a prima facie case of negligence. The State does not dispute that the window was defective at the time of the incident nor does it dispute any of Claimant's testimony in regard to his discussions with the COs. Respondent has not rebutted Claimant's case nor does it rebut the presumption of notice of the defective condition. The facts show the Respondent allowed a defective window to exist for a long period of time, and that the window; being a large heavy object, was dangerous.

Claimant has failed to prove that his injuries are as he alleges them to be. The Respondent's Departmental Report and the testimony of Dr. Kurian rebut Claimant's claims of permanent disability and more extensive injuries.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of Four Hundred Six Dollars and Forty-Two Cents ($406.42); $400 for his personal injuries and $6.42 for his loss of pay as shown in the verified Complaint.

PATCHETT, J.