MARCELLUS JORDAN v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

This claim is before the Court upon a recommendation from Commissioner Robert H. Rath following an evidentiary hearing conducted at Menard Correctional Center in Chester, Illinois.

Claimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections and incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, is seeking $100,000.00 as damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by Claimant through the alleged fault or neglect of Respondent. Claimant's Complaint alleges that on February 24, 1997, at approximately 12:10 p.m., he was participating in a weekly yard period on the West Yard at Menard Correctional Center when an altercation erupted which in no way involved Claimant. Claimant alleges a shot was fired by Respondent's correctional officer followed by a second shot approximately 15 seconds later which struck Claimant seriously injuring Claimant. Claimant alleges he was struck in his legs and the middle finger of his left hand.

Upon hearing, Claimant testified that on February 24, 1997, he participated on one of the yard periods, and that during an altercation there was a shooting. Claimant heard one shot and immediately dropped to one knee. Claimant contends he heard two other shots and then realized that he had been struck and was bleeding. Claimant emphatically denied that he had anything to do with the alteration or disturbance that apparently provoked the shooting incident. Claimant had no information as to how it came to pass that he was struck.

Claimant's theory of recovery is that he was shot recklessly and negligently, and there was no reason for him to sustain the wounds which he received. Claimant contends he received no ticket for misconduct, was not placed on Segregation Status, but still received wounds from being shot.

Claimant received medical treatment and now claims that his left middle finger is not, properly healed and his right leg goes numb at times. The Claimant demonstrated wounds on the inside of his right leg and scarring from the injuries. Claimant sustained no fracture, but contends that he had about sixteen stitches in the middle finger of his left hand, which apparently adversely impacted the nervous system in the finger. If he stands or walks too long, his right leg becomes numb. The Commissioner observed a scarred circle about the size of a quarter on the inner portion of the Claimant's upper right thigh, and a similar round dark area about the size of a nickel on Claimant's upper left leg. A dark linear mark approximately a quarter of an inch in length was seen on Claimant's left lower side.

Correctional Officer Quigley was called and testified on behalf of Respondent. Quigley was located by the gym door which is right next to the yard where the incident occurred. The witness heard on his radio that there was a fight on the yard and he walked toward the door hearing a shot ring out. He saw a group of approximately 25 inmates clashing with four or five actually involved in the fight. The rest of the inmates were facing off and officers were entering the yard walking toward the group as they were splitting up. Quigley testified that he thought he heard two shots. Quigley explained that a warning shot is intended to attempt to break up a situation that could otherwise develop into a threat to the safety of inmates or correctional officers. The warning shots are aimed at the ground. Quigley was unaware of Claimant's presence or the injuries to Claimant, and was unaware of the identify of the officer who had discharged the shots, the location from which the shots were discharged and the location of the area at which aim was taken to discharge the shots.

Health Summary Reports submitted in evidence revealed that Claimant was admitted to the Health Care Unit with multiple superficial buckshot wounds he sustained while in the yard. Claimant's finger was sutured. Medical reports revealed that Claimant was requesting permission to leave the Health Care Unit and return to his cell as early as February 26, 1997, at 12:30 p.m., and that he requested to return to his cell at 8:15 a.m., on February 26, 1997 being in no acute distress.

Evidence upon hearing regarding the details of the decision to fire warning shots, the mechanics of the discharge of the weapon, and the circumstances observed by the unknown Correctional Officer responsible for discharging the weapon are absent from the record. It is clear from the testimony of the Claimant land Correctional Officer Quigley, that a serious altercation erupted and was in progress at the time the warning shots were fired. It is equally clear that Claimant was not involved in the altercation and had no culpability in creating or causing the situation apparently leading to the discharge of warning shots. Similarly, it is clear that Claimant was struck with buckshot.

Claimant's position as evidenced by his testimony upon hearing was that in as much as he was innocent of wrongdoing and was, in fact, struck by buckshot. discharged by Respondent's security personnel, he should be entitled to recover money damages for the injuries thereby sustained.

We disagree with Claimant's theory of recovery. Inmates in prison have a reasonable right to personal safety; however, when a dangerous situation occurs, the State owes a duty to the general prison population to restore order as quickly as possible and prevent attacks on other inmates or other correctional officers. It is clear from the evidence at the hearing that the unknown officer's actions in discharging a firearm in this case were entirely reasonable considering the situation that had developed on the yard. There is no evidence that would suggest that the discharge of the firearm in question was negligent, careless or unwarranted. There is no evidence from which this Court can determine if Claimant's wounds were sustained as a result of direct fire from the weapon discharged or from the ricochet of fragments. We decline to adopt a theory of res ipsa loquitur in a circumstance of this kind. We find that the discharge of the weapon in the case at bar was reasonable.

There being no evidence of negligence in the manner in which the weapon was discharged, we decline to conclude that Respondent was negligent and that the negligence was the proximate cause of Claimant's injuries. Respondent is not an insurer of the safety of inmates while confined in Respondent's correctional centers. Sudden and unexpected acts of violence on the part of inmates can create risk to the safety and well being of other inmates who are free of any fault. In this case, Claimant sustained injuries as a direct result of misdeeds and conduct of other inmates that called for stern and prompt measures on the part of Respondent's correctional officers to quell the disturbance in order to prevent possibly greater injuries to other inmates or security personnel. There being no evidence that the steps taken by Respondent's correctional officers were negligent, or carelessly performed, this claim must be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that this claim is denied.

RAUCCI, C.J.