PIERRE WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2003)

OPINION

This claim is before the Court on a recommendation from Commissioner Weaver following an evidentiary hearing. The Claimant, Pierre Williams, an inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections, is seeking damages in the amount of $50,000.00 for injuries allegedly arising from the negligence of the agents and employees of the State of Illinois and the Department of Corrections. Claimant's medical negligence case was previously dismissed by the Court.

The Facts

The Claimant filed his Complaint on June 27, 2000, alleging injuries from an incident which occurred on August 17, 1999, while the Claimant was incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center. The undisputed facts are that on August 17, 1999, the Claimant was returning from participation in a baseball game when he stopped to wash his hands in a sink located in the day room. After washing his hands, he turned and as Claimant was leaving the area, he was struck on the back of the head and upper back by a light fixture which fell from the ceiling. The testimony indicated that the light fixture was approximately five feet long and 10 inches wide and had been hanging from the ceiling. The evidence established that it was a neon light fixture that was attached to the ceiling approximately 10 feet above the floor.

The Claimant testified that there was no prior warning and that the fixture fell for no apparent reason. The Claimant testified that after being struck, he fell into a person who was in the line waiting to wash his hands. This person braced him so that he did not fall to the floor. The testimony indicated that the entire fixture fell from the ceiling. The Claimant testified that he did not lose consciousness, returned to his living unit, and subsequently received first aid at the nurse's station within the correctional facility. The Claimant stated that no x-rays were performed at the health center and they just looked at his injury. The injury was described as a quarter-size knot on the back of Claimant's head and a little scrape on his upper back. He was given aspirin and a bag of ice to apply to the area and was told to return if he continued to have problems. At the hearing, Claimant testified that as a result of his injury, there was no cut or bleeding, he needed no stitches and no bandages were applied. The record indicates that he was off work for several days. At the time of the accident, Claimant was working within the dietary service at the correctional facility and he did not work for three or four days due to the injury. The Claimant testified that after he returned to work from his injuries, that the correctional authorities changed his job to a porter, which essentially requires duties equivalent to that of a maid or janitor. When questioned about complaints as a consequence of his injuries, he testified that he has had ongoing headaches and that he still suffers from headaches on an occasional basis. He testified that initially he had some dizziness and that he complained of blurred vision, particularly when he got up in the morning. He testified that he did wear glasses, but did so only for reading. There was no medical evidence relating the continued headaches to the injury.

Claimant was asked about other complaints or injuries arising from this injury and he indicated none other than the ongoing headaches. He testified that for a while he had problems with his arms and he was unable to participate in activities, such as baseball, for a period of several months. The Claimant testified that as a consequence of his changing duty assignment, he took a pay cut at the rate of $5.00 monthly.

On cross-examination, Claimant testified that he now has headaches two or three times per month and that as a consequence, he usually takes aspirin or drinks water and generally obtains relief. He also testified that his current job assignment was that of a janitor at Logan Correctional Center. Claimant testified he is required to lift 40-50 pounds, as part of his job, which he is able to do.

In his Complaint, Claimant seeks compensation for mental anguish describing his fear of objects falling on him in the future. There was no psychiatric testimony presented by Claimant.

Also made a part of the record was the Rule 55 Disclosure presented by the Respondent. Contained in that disclosure were medical records showing the Claimant's medical history from August 14, 1999, through June of 2000. The records confirm that first aid was provided to the Claimant on August 17, 1999, for a minor head injury. At that time, Claimant complained of a headache and blurred vision and was prescribed ice and Tylenol and told to return upon any increase in headache or pain. The record also indicates that Claimant was seen again on August 25, 1999, where his condition was essentially normal, although he complained of headache and blurred vision upon arising in the morning. The nurse's notes indicate he was referred to a physician and that on August 27, 1999, he was seen by a physician in the institution and diagnosed with a probable mild concussion with symptoms of headache. Claimant's physical exam was otherwise normal and the Claimant was prescribed 800 mg of Motrin for a period of seven days. The next note contained in the medical records was dated September 1, 1999, and indicates that Claimant continues to complain of headaches off and on and states that the Motrin does not work. Claimant states that he is dizzy upon arising first thing in the morning but the dizziness goes away and that his neck also hurts a little. He denies complaints other than chronic headaches. The next note of September 9, 1999, indicates that the Motrin was continued for treatment of headaches. The treatment notes state that the Claimant was seen by a doctor within the institution on October 7, 1999, at which time he was prescribed 500 mg of Naprison, to be taken once a day as needed, with the Claimant having no complaint other than headaches.

Except for a mental health evaluation dated October 27, 1999, the other medical records are not relevant. The mental health evaluation indicates that the Claimant, per his filed grievance, was experiencing emotional problems in connection with the incident. He stated,

I'm okay. I still have a few headaches and sometimes get stiffness in my shoulder and neck. The doctor gave me some little pill that doesn't work. He had me on Motrin and that didn't work either. This hasn't caused me any mental problems. I just wish I had not had to complain so much to get to see a doctor. They didn't even order x-rays or nothing like that. How did they know there was nothing broken?

The psychologist at the Centralia Correctional Center concluded that the Claimant's mood at the time was appropriate, he was fully oriented, he had good eye contact, sequential thought flow, his thoughts and goals were well directed and focused, his speed was normal, he was in no distress, he had no current suicidal or homicidal ideation, and no pathology was noted.

The Respondent presented no witnesses and there was no evidence of or intimation that the Claimant had done anything to cause the light fixture to fall. There was also no evidence of any notice of a prior problem with this particular light fixture or the condition of the Centralia Correctional Center.

The Law

The evidence in this case established that the light fixture fell without any apparent notice and without fault of the Claimant. The fixture struck the Claimant in the head and the back of the neck, causing minor head injuries, for which the Claimant obtained treatment over a period of time.

The light fixture, permanently mounted on the ceiling of the correctional center, is an integral part of the building. There is absolutely no evidence that the Claimant was involved in any misconduct, nor that any other third party was involved in any acts which might otherwise cause the light fixture to fall.

This Court has repeatedly held that the State of Illinois owes a duty to the inmates of its penal institutions to provide them with reasonably safe conditions in which to work and a safe place to live. Williams v. State of Illinois, (1999), 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1. When an injury is caused by something under the management of the State and the injury is one that, in the ordinary course of evidence, would not have happened if the State had exercised proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence that in the absence of some alternative explanation, the accident arise from the State's want of care. Flaunting v. State of Illinois, (1993), 45 Ill.Ct.Cl. 272. The prison buildings and their light fixtures do not fall and injure people. The Respondent presented no explanation for the incident. In the ordinary course of events, this light fixture would not have fallen and injured the Claimant. We find the accident arise from the State's want of care.

As to damages, the head injury sustained by the Claimant was minor. He suffered no loss of consciousness, bleeding, bruising or scarring, and there is no evidence of any broken bones. The diagnosis was a mild concussion and the Claimant described his symptoms as having almost completely resolved. For a short period of time, Claimant had pain and headache and was off work. He is now able to perform the duties required of him as a janitor and he is able to life 40-50 pounds. Claimant does state that he has occasional headaches but he does not suffer any longer from blurred vision.

The Claimant obviously suffered from pain for a period of time and now may have some occasional short-term discomfort as a result of this occurrence. The Claimant did state that for a period of time, he lost $5.00 per month of his wage based upon his inability to perform the work he was performing at the time of his injury. Despite the fact that the injuries sustained were relatively minor, the Claimant is entitled to an award of damages. We find that Claimant is entitled to an award of $950.00.

Based upon the above and foregoing evidence, the Claimant has met his burden of proof and it is, therefore, ordered that the Claimant is awarded $950.00 in full and complete satisfaction of his Complaint.

FREDERICK, J.