ALFONSO LEBRON v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

This cause is before the Court on a verified Complaint filed by Claimant, Alfonso Lebron against Respondent, State of Illinois requesting $20,000 in damages. The claim, sounding in tort was filed pursuant to Section 8 (d) of the Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/8(d) (1998). On May 14, 1998, Claimant cut his left arm while performing his job assignment at Vandalia Correctional Center (VCC). A hearing was conducted at which Claimant appeared and testified that he was seeking only a couple thousand dollars in damages.

The Facts

Claimant was working as a meat cutter at the VCC meat plant. His duties included cutting beef all the way to the bone. At the time of the incident, Claimant had worked at his job for approximately one month. He worked approximately eight hours a day. He testified that he did not have any prior experience as a meat cutter. He stated that the VCC personnel did not provide any training. Training was left up to the other inmates working at the meat plant. He signed an Acknowledgment that he had read and fully understood a Policy Manual, but contends that he was not given a chance to read it.

Cattle are butchered at the meat plant. There is one side where they kill them, the slaughterhouse, cut them open, take all their guts out or whatever, and bring them over to the other side where we cut them down, according to Claimant. The cows are purchased by VCC and the final products are sold to other penitentiaries.

In performing his job, Claimant did not use a machine, instead he only used a cutting knife. The knife had a handle that was five to six inches in length, approximately two inches in diameter, and an eight inch blade.

On May 14, 1998, Claimant was cutting the hind legs of cows. Claimant described the incident as follows:

I was on my last leg and I was cutting it and it got stuck in a tendon or something and as I pulled the knife up and pulled it down, it slipped and your hand - you are wearing gloves and your hands are full of blood and everything and everything was sliding all over the place.

Claimant stated that he had the knife in his right hand and sliced his left arm. He was wearing regular cloth gloves. His supervisor took him to the VCC Health Care Unit, where a doctor was summoned. The doctor cleaned the cut and closed the wound with sixteen stitches. The cut was one inch to one and half inch long and was in a horseshoe shape. It looked like the skin had been peeled back. Claimant said the cut went deep and a big chunk was hanging out. He indicated that his cut became infected.

He asserted that working on the hind legs was disfavored by the workers because they are big, heavy and slippery. He claims workers get cut a lot when working on hind legs. Claimant stated that he kept asking his supervisor for safety gloves, but was told that there were not any gloves and some were on order. He also said that the supervisor was always hurrying him to put the meat out fast.

At the time of the incident Claimant was making $175 to $200 a month. He received the unassigned rate of $15 a month for the three weeks that the stitches were in his arms. He missed over thirty days of work. The VCC officials did not let him return to work at the meat plant because he had back problems, which he said was known prior to him taking the meat cutter job. After the stitches were removed he took a job in the kitchen earning $15 a month. He did not have any documents to show what he was making during his month at the meat plant.

The Medical Progress Notes appear to indicate that the stitches were removed ten days after the incident. Claimant stated that a couple of stitches were removed on that day with the others being removed later. There is no indication in the Notes that stitches were removed and no indications of other problems with the cut after the stitches were removed. He was receiving Motrin for the pain in his back prior, and subsequent, to the injury in question. The back injury is unrelated to the injury suffered on May 14, and the Notes contain a record of back complaints before and after the incident in question.

In Response to the question of Why Did Injury Occur, an Inmate Injury Report, dated May 14, 1998, states that Claimant was not watching. Although Claimant signed the Report, the identity of the author of the Report is not indicated. No incident Reports were provided by Respondent.

Two different Inmate Performance Evaluations are included in the Departmental Report. The May 12, 1998, Evaluation, prepared prior to the incident indicates that Claimant marginally accomplishes expectations. The Evaluation, dated June 17, 1998, appraises his performance as unacceptable and below minimum acceptable level. It indicates the reason for evaluation was for Disciplinary Termination.

The law

The Court has held that the State owes a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to provide them with safe conditions under which to perform their assigned work. In order to recover, Claimant bears the burden of proving, by a 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 was proximate cause of his injury. Davis v. State (1998), 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 214.

The State has a duty to supervise inmates as they work in order to provide a safe working environment. In Davis, the Court found the State negligent for failing to provide proper supervision and training in the operation of wood shop machinery and tools. Id. at 218. Judge Jann, writing for the Court in Davis, stated that orally 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. Id. at 218.

The Davis Court, in stating that it must consider the conditions under which an inmate acts in the face of known danger to determine whether any fault should be assessed to him, found the inmate to be contributory negligent in the amount of 40 percent. Id at 218.

In Hayes v. State (1995), 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 215, the Court noted that the unique relationship between the State and a prison inmate results in the State having a duty to provide safe conditions and adequate supervision for inmates to perform assigned tasks. The Court observed that requiring an inmate to work in a dangerous workplace is not in itself improper, but to do so without supervision and adequate safety precautions may make the State liable for injuries. Id. at 219.

In the sase at bar, Claimant testified that State personnel did not provide any training. He did state that the training was left to inmates, but did not provide any details on the length or extent of any training by inmates. He testified to working conditions that were slippery and filthy with blood. He stated that his cloth gloves were blood soaked. He told about being hurried by supervisors. There is nothing in the record to indicate whether other gloves would have prevented the injury had they been provided, however, his testimony is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the State for failure to provide proper training and supervision. Even if the facts were sufficient to show that inmates provided some training, this record is insufficient to establish that Respondent may delegate its duty to inmates to provide proper training and supervision.

Respondent did not present any evidence on the training or supervision that takes place at the VCC meat plant. Respondent did not dispute Claimant's graphic descriptions of the working conditions or the degree of difficulty in cutting hind legs. Respondent has failed to rebut Claimant's prima facie case of negligence.

Claimant's testimony and the Inmate Injury Report indicate that Claimant may have been performing his job assignment on the last hind legs in a manner in which he failed to take proper care for his own safety. The Court finds that Claimant was contributory negligent in the amount of 35 percent.

Claimant bears a scar on his arm; however, there is no indication that he suffered from any permanent impairments. The Court finds that the damages caused to Claimant's arm are in the amount of $750, which should be reduced by 35 percent to account for his contributory negligence.

Claimant claims that he was improperly denied the right to return to his job as a meat cutter. Claimant has not met his burden to prove that he was denied the right to return as a result of the accident. The June 17, Evaluation is a document admitted pursuant to Section 790.140 of the Court of Claims Regulations and is prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein. The Evaluation indicates that his job assignment was terminated because of poor performance.

Claimant testified that he was making $175 to $200 in his one month as a meat cutter. He did not have any documents to substantiate this assertion. Respondent has a burden, pursuant to Section 790.55(a) to provide Claimant with copies of certain specifically delineated documents. Documents in relation to earnings or trust fund activities are not included in the list of documents. Therefore, the burden remains on Claimant to prove loss of wages, a burden which was not met in this instance.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of Four Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($487.50) ($750 times 65 percent).

PATCHETT, J.