ALEXANDER PARKS v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (2014)

OPINION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Claimant, Alexander Parks, brought this claim for negligence seeking damages for injuries to the fourth and fifth fingers of his left hand that he sustained while an inmate at Hill Correctional Institution (HCI). Claimant testified that at the time of the incident, he worked in the kitchen. When the inmates started their shift, an officer unlocked and opened the closed, and all inmates put their coats inside it. Upon finishing their shift, the inmates retrieved their coats from said closet after an officer unlocked and opened it for them. Claimant also stated that the closet door was a heavy metal door that could only be unlocked by one of the officers, and it had to be held open by one of the officers because otherwise it would close automatically.

Claimant testified that on April 23, 2008, at 6:00 am, he was the last person from kitchen duty and asked Correctional Officer Smith to open the closet door for him so he could get his coat. Claimant stated that after Officer Smith opened the door, Claimant entered the closet, but was not all the way in when he saw the large metal door fly toward him. Claimant tried to get his entire body inside the closet to avoid injury, but the door managed to crush the tip of (he fourth and fifth fingers in his left hand, causing them to bleed and cause him pain.

He was taken immediately to the health unit and the next day to a local hospital where he was examined by medical staff. The exam revealed swelling, tenderness, and a small laceration on two left fingers. X-rays disclosed an open fracture to the left ring Finger. His finger was stitched and he was given medications for pain and infection. Until about August 2, 2008, Claimant received treatment for the pain associated with his fingers.

Officer Smith testified that as of the date of the incident, he had been working at HCI for about ten years and was working in dietary. His duties were providing for the security and safety of the inmates and staff. Officer Smith testified that he did not recall Claimant approaching him and asking him to open the door. Instead, he testified that the inmates were “dragging their feet…and not doing what they needed to do,” and after he believed the closet to be empty. Claimant came running past Officer Smith and said, “Hold on, CO Smith, I've got to get something.”

As Claimant ran past Officer Smith, Officer Smith's back was away from the closet, and he was addressing some inmates that were misbehaving. Smith testified that while Claimant was running past him is when he let go of the door. It is unclear from his testimony if he let the door go before or after Claimant told him to hold on.

Regarding the door, Smith stated that it was heavy and made of metal. Also, it was spring-loaded, so when you let go of it, it would automatically close and since the door was so heavy, it would close, “forcefully.” Respondent's departmental report includes three sworn affidavits from inmates who were witnesses to the incident. Two of the three inmates witnessed Claimant ask Officer Smith to open the door and saw Officer Smith slam the door on Claimant's hand as he entered the closet - one stated he did know why he did it; the other stated that he did not know if it was on purpose or by accident. The third stated he witnessed Officer Smith slamming the door angrily and heard him say that they were taking too long to leave and get their coats out of the closet. Analysis

To prove negligence, a claimant must prove facts establishing the following: the existence of a duty that respondent owed him: the respondent's breach of that duty; and that as a proximate result of the breach the claimant suffered damages. Estate of Johnson by Johnson v. Condell Memorial Hosp., I 19 Ill.2d 496 (1988). In a general negligence case like this one, the State owes a duty of ordinary care to guard against injuries to others that may result as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of negligent conduct. Karas v. Strevell. 369 Ill.App.3d 884, 889 (2nd Dist. 2006).

Here, Respondent argues that Officer Smith did not breach his duty of ordinary care because he thought no one was in the closet when he let go of the door. However, based on Officer Smith's own testimony, his back was turned to the closet when he let (he door go. He knew it was a heavy door that closed with force. It was foreseeable that someone could suffer bodily injury if the door closed on them while they were getting in or out of the closet. Despite being aware of this, he let the door go without checking to see if anyone was entering or leaving the closet.

Further, based on his own testimony, he knew that Claimant was going into the closet. And even if Claimant ran past him when he told Officer Smith to hold on, Officer Smith never testified that he told Claimant he could not go into the closet as he ran past him. So there was no reason for Claimant to believe that Officer Smith was going to let go of the door. Thus, under the circumstances, Officer Smith breached a duty of ordinary care in letting go of the door. No medical bills have been submitted and therefore no award is made for medical expenses. We find that the Claimant did experience significant pain and suffering as a result of this accident resulting in a fracture and injuries to his fingers.

THEREFORE, Respondent is liable to Claimant for $750 for pain and suffering.

SPRAGUE, J.