LITTLE 52783 v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (2018)

OPINION

Claimant Priest Little filed this tort action against the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) for injuries he allegedly sustained while incarcerated in the Danville Correctional Center (“Danville”). The following facts are drawn from testimony and other submissions at the trial of this matter on April 18, 2018.

On May 6, 2016, Claimant, while an inmate at Danville, was using the pull-down bar on a universal weight machine in the gymnasium when the cable to the pull-down bar broke and the pull-down bar fell on the top of Claimant's head, causing a laceration which was closed with eight staples. Claimant testified that he had headaches “for a couple of days” but “…that was pretty much it,” other than a small scar from the laceration. Claimant's Complaint alleges that Respondent negligently failed to inspect the universal machine, for which Claimant seeks damages of $100,000.

Respondent's reply essentially is that Respondent was not on notice, actual or constructive, of any defective condition of the universal machine despite regular maintenance.

In order to succeed in an action against Respondent for negligence, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) Respondent had a duty with regard to Claimant; (2) that Respondent breached its duty to Claimant by a negligent act or omission; and (3) that Respondent's negligence proximately caused a compensable injury. Johnson v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 345, 350 (1996) citing O'Neill v. State, 46 Ill. Ct. Cl. 146, 148 (1983). Respondent owes a duty of protection to inmates and must exercise reasonable care; however, the State is not an insurer of inmate safety, and is charged with a duty toward inmates only for a legally foreseeable harm. Ratcliff v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137, 140 (1995); Saulter v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152, 154 (1995). A legal duty requires more than the mere possibility of an occurrence. Saulter, supra.

This Court has held that although the State, when it provides inmates with recreational equipment for use, has a duty to provide equipment which is in good condition, a claimant, to prove negligence, must show through written evidence or testimony that the State breached a duty toward him. Sabaduquia v. State, 54 Ill. Ct. Cl. 288 (2001); Starks v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 285, 290 (1992); Terry v. State, 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 211, 213 (1991). There is no requirement that the State provide equipment or other items that could ““…never…create an injury,” especially in an environment such as a gymnasium. Saulter, supra, at 154. Further, the existence of a defect in a piece of equipment is not sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the State. Sabaduquia, supra. A claimant must also establish that the State had actual or constructive notice of the defect. Sabaduquia, supra; Saulter, supra; Ratcliff v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137, 140-142 (1995). This Court has imputed constructive notice to the State where a condition by its evident nature, duration, and potential for harm should have come to the attention of the State, so that it should have taken some action. Scott v. State, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 116 (1998).

A review of the record reveals no evidence presented by Claimant that Respondent had actual notice that the universal machine was defective or constituted a dangerous condition prior to the failure of the cable while Claimant was using it. Claimant did not testify, and presented no other evidence, that Respondent was aware that the machine had the potential to break or was in danger of breaking. To the contrary, Claimant attached to his Complaint an affidavit from at least one other inmate who had use the universal machine without incident shortly before Claimant and who was resting following his use of the machine at the time the cable broke. Moreover, the uncontradicted testimony of Chad Tranchant, the acting LTS supervisor with oversight responsibility of recreational activities at Danville at the time Claimant was injured, was that inmate workers checked the equipment both in mornings and evenings every day to make certain that nothing was broken, including fraying of cables; should a broken piece of equipment be found, the workers were to either remove the equipment from the gym or alert a Danville Correctional Center employee who in turn would either remove the broken part of the piece of equipment or put an out of order sign on the equipment in question and submit a work order to have it repaired. Frayed cables are a particular focus in equipment inspections due to the concern that an inmate could remove wire from a frayed cable and use it as a weapon or tattoo apparatus. There was no report of a frayed cable or any other defect or damage to the universal weight machine on the morning of May 6, 2016 prior to its use by Danville inmates. Further, the regular examination of the gym equipment twice daily for defects is proof that Respondent was using reasonable care to maintain that equipment, and Claimant presented no evidence to suggest that the inmate workers failed to examine the universal weight machine the day before or the morning of May 6, 2016. Thus, Claimant failed to prove that Respondent had actual notice that the cable or any other part of the universal machine was defective despite regular examinations of the equipment.

In order for Claimant to establish constructive notice to Respondent, Claimant must prove that the frayed cable existed for a length of time such that Respondent would have been deemed to have constructive notice and failed to take any steps to remedy or remove the hazard. Barger v. State, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 120 (1988). Again to the contrary, Claimant not only did not mention any visible defect in the universal machine whatsoever, but none of the affidavits of the several other inmates who indicated their being present when Claimant was injured, including inmates who used the machine immediately prior to Claimant, make any mention of frayed cables or other defects in the machine. Moreover, and as referenced above, the unchallenged testimony of LTS Supervisor Tranchant was that daily morning and evening examinations of the equipment by inmate workers were conducted to assure that nothing was broken or defective and to report or remove any broken equipment, and Claimant presented no evidence that those inspections did not occur on the day before or the morning immediately preceding Claimant's May 6, 2016 incident on the universal weight machine. Accordingly, there is no evidence of any visible defect immediately before the incident, much less for any length of time beforehand, and Claimant thus has failed to prove the Respondent had constructive notice of any defect with regard to the universal weight machine prior to the breaking of the cable which caused Claimant's injury.

Claimant testified at the final hearing that he was pursuing a claim for damages regarding his medical care following the May 6, 2016 incident on the universal weight machine. However, Claimant failed to attach a medical affidavit pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-622(a), which provides as follows:

Healing arts malpractice. In any action, whether in tort, contract, or otherwise, in which the plaintiff seeks damages for injuries or death by reason of medical, hospital, or other healing art malpractice, the plaintiff's attorney or the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, shall file an affidavit, attached to the original and all copies of the complaint, declaring the following:

(1) That affiant has consulted and reviewed the facts with a health care professional who the affiant reasonably believes (i) is knowledgeable in the relevant issues… (ii) practices or has practiced within…or taught…within the last 6 years…in the same area of health care…at issue… (iii) is qualified, that the reviewing health care professional has determined in a written report, after reviewing the medical record…that there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for filing such action…a copy of the written report… and the reasons for the reviewing health professional determination that a reasonable and meritorious cause…exists, must be attached to the affidavit…

735 ILCS 5/2-622. Failure to comply with this requirement is grounds for dismissal under 735 ILCS 5/2-619. Buckner v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 196 (1988). Because Claimant failed to provide either an affidavit from a health care professional that the medical care and treatment provided to him for the laceration to his skull caused by the incident was improper, his claims for medical malpractice are denied.

Therefore, and for the reasons above stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this claim is denied and dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.

KARAHALIOS, J.