Mondrea Vinning v. State of Illinois

OPINION

BIRNBAUM, J. This cause comes before the Court on a Complaint filed May 6, 2002 by Mondrea Vinning, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), seeking damages from Respondent in the amount of $5,000 plus costs for personal injuries he sustained in a fight with his cellmate while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (Menard). Claimant alleges Respondent was negligent by failing to provide adequate safety. Jurisdiction for [*276] this case, sounding on tort, is found in Section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/8(d)(2000).

A hearing was held at IDOC on January 12, 2006 before Commissioner Murphy. Claimant appeared via videoconferencing and testified. The record includes a transcript of the proceedings and the respondent’s combined Rule 55 Discovery Disclosure and Departmental Report.

FACTS

Claimant testified at hearing as follows. While incarcerated at Menard, he was moved from Cell 617 to Cell 653 on August 10, 2001. Before entering the cell, Claimant told Officer Reid (who was working the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift) and another officer that he had a previous altercation and did not get along with the inmate in the new cell who is now known to be inmate Franklin. Claimant did not know Franklin’s name at the time and had not previously requested Franklin to be on his list of declared enemies. Officer Reid placed Claimant in the cell with Franklin and ignored Claimant’s request to be placed in a different cell. Franklin and Claimant began to fight on August 10th and were eventually taken to get medical treatment but then returned to the same cell for the night.

In his Complaint, Claimant alleges that when the next shift started, (3 to 11 p.m.), he informed Officer Long that he and Franklin had been fighting and one of them should be moved but, again, no action was taken. A second fight occurred at 8:00 p.m. Claimant’s medication was delivered at 8:30 p.m. and he refused to take his medication for the purpose of getting aid to be moved.

It was during the second fight at 8:00 p.m. that Claimant received injuries to his left eye and right leg.

According to Claimant, the staff at Menard (both Officer Reid and Officer Long) should have considered Claimant’s warning that there would be a fight along with medical concerns that both he and Franklin were on psychotropic medication. Menard staff had prior knowledge of the potential danger if Claimant and Franklin were double celled and failed to protect Claimant in violation of IDOC double celling rules.

On cross-examination, Claimant admitted that he has threatened to sue everyone who ignores his request to be in a single cell. Claimant was moved to a new cell the next day, August 11th. Regarding injuries, Claimant admitted that he had worn glasses on and off for years but his eyesight worsened after this incident.

Respondent offered into evidence its Combined Rule 55 Discovery Disclosure and Departmental Report and it was admitted. Respondent did not present any witnesses.

Legal Analysis

The State is not an insurer as to the safety of an inmate in its custody.

It does however have a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances [*277] to prevent its inmates from suffering harm at the hands of other inmates. What is reasonable under the circumstances must be judged in view of the prison environment Petrusak v. State, 39 Ill.Ct.Cl. 113, 114 (1987). Foreseeability of potential for harm is a necessary element which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

It is the opinion of this Court that the unrebutted testimony of Claimant and medical records admitted into evidence are sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent breached its duty of reasonable care under the circumstances proximately causing harm to Claimant.

Respondent had several opportunities to prevent the injuries to Claimant. First, Claimant directly informed Officer Reid just prior to being placed in the cell with Franklin that they did not get along and a fight would occur. Claimant also told Officer Long on the next shift that someone needed to be moved after one fight had already occurred. Claimant’s unrebutted testimony was consistent with the grievances and incident report filed. Although Respondent argued that Claimant’s credibility was insufficient given his demands for a single cell and previous cellmate problems, no evidence was presented to contradict Claimant’s testimony. Claimant’s testimony is further supported by the fact that Respondent appears to have ignored the dangerous combination of cellmates when it placed Claimant back into the same cell with the same cellmate for the remainder of the night immediately after having been treated for fight injuries.

The Court is careful not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of IDOC. However, without evidence of adequate (or any) precautions taken by Respondent to protect Claimant, the circumstances of this case show Respondent had prior knowledge sufficient to foresee the danger created by double celling Claimant and Franklin.

Damages

Claimant’s injuries were the direct and proximate result of Respondent’s breach of its duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to Claimant. Claimant testified that his left eye was injured and his right knee required bandages. The medical records admitted into evidence reflect superficial laceration under his left eye after being involved in a fight. The eye area was swollen, discolored with a small amount of bleeding.

Claimant received follow-up care for blurred vision in his left eye. He testified that his vision has been worse since this injury but admits that he has worn glasses on and off for years. The Court has wide discretion to determine damages. It does not appear that Claimant’s injuries are severe in nature nor will result in long term pain or suffering to Claimant.

For the above reasons, it is hereby ordered that Claimant be granted an award of $250.00 in full and final satisfaction of this claim.