MASON WILLIAMS, Claimant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought $45,000 for injuries from an inmate attack and excessive use of mace by staff. The court denied the claim, finding the respondent used reasonable care to break up the fight and no breach of duty, and claimant failed to prove medical expenses or emotional distress.
Cases cited: Ratcliff v. State of Illinois (1995) 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137; Long v. State of Illinois (1986) 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 39; Castle v. State of Illinois (1993) 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 250
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Negligence-Elements-Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State had a duty to protect Claimant from harm, that the duty was breached and that the breach was the proximate cause of Claimant’s injury.
- Prisoners and Inmates-Duty-The State owes inmates a duty of protection and must exercise reasonable care, but the State is not the insurer of the safety of its prisoners.
- Prisoners and Inmates-Use of mace to break up an inmate fight-The State was not liable for damages when Respondent used reasonable care to break up a fight between Claimant and another inmate when they failed to follow his command to cease fighting and were sprayed by the officer with mace.
ORDER
Sprague, C.J.
Claimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections and incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, is seeking $45,000.00 for personal injuries sustained when he was attacked by inmates on March 31, 2003, while incarcerated at the Menard Correctional Center. Claimant further claims correctional staff used an excessive amount of chemical agent on him in an effort to break up the fight. Claimant alleges his injuries are the direct result of Respondent’s negligence. Claimant filed a grievance with Illinois Department of Corrections on April 10, 2003, seeking compensation for the injury. The grievance was subsequently reviewed by the Administrative Review Board and denied on May 7, 2003. After receiving an unsatisfactory determination, Claimant filed the present complaint with the Court of Claims on January 6, 2004.
FACTS
Claimant alleges that on or about March 31, 2003, he was placed in protective custody in the “C Wing” at Menard Correctional Center. While in the yard section of “C Wing”, Claimant was involved in a fight with another inmate named Carr #A-75014, when he was compelled to defend himself. Correctional Officer Meyer [*262] testified he verbally ordered both Claimant and Carr to immediately cease fighting. The inmates did not obey his verbal command. In an effort stop the fighting, Officer Meyer sprayed a three (3) second burst of “mace” on both Claimant and Carr. He further testified his actions were within established policy and procedures at Menard. He further testified, to his knowledge, Claimant and Carr were not known enemies. After the incident, claimant received medical treatment where his eyes were flushed with water. Claimant did not seek additional medical care, however, he has made allegations of “emotional stress”, but has not sought psychiatric care as a result of the incident. On May 13, 2003, Claimant pleaded guilty to a violation of fighting, but insisted he did so in “self defense”. Claimant is seeking $45,000 for medical expenses and emotional distress due to Respondent’s negligence. Claimant did not present evidence of medical expenses to support his claim for $45,000.
Respondent offered testimony that Claimant and fellow inmate Carr were involved in a fight in the yard of “C Wing” and were not know enemies. Both Claimant and Carr refused to obey Officer Meyer’s verbal command to cease fighting. Officer Meyer followed established Correctional Center policy and procedures by using “mace” to stop fighting and as such, should not be liable for Claimant’s injuries.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The law provides that to prevail on a claim of negligence, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State had a duty to protect Claimant from harm, that the duty was breached and that the breach was the proximate cause of Claimant’s injury. Ratcliff v. State of Illinois (1995) 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137 at 140, The State clearly owes its inmates a duty of protection and must exercise reasonable care where he is concerned, however, the State is not the insurer of the safety of its prisoners Ratcliff at p.140.
Claimant is not required to prove that the State had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, however, Claimant must establish that the State could have discovered the dangerous condition by the exercise of reasonable care. Long v. State of Illinois (1986) 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 39 at 42. In the absence of proof that Respondent’s agents anticipated or could have reasonably anticipated illegal or improper acts against Claimant, the State is not liable.
Castle v. State of Illinois (1993) 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 250 at 252.
[*263] In the present case, Claimant proved he was injured as a direct result of being sprayed in the face with “mace”. The Respondent does not deny the injury occurred but is not liable for damages because it used reasonable care in breaking up a fight that could have resulted in more serious injuries. “Mace” was used only because Claimant failed to follow Officer Meyer’s verbal command to cease fighting. It is well settled under Ratcliff v. State of Illinois (1995) 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137 at 140 and Long v. State of Illinois (1986) 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 39 at 42 above, the State clearly owes its inmates a duty of protection and must exercise reasonable care where he is concerned, however, the State is not the insurer of the safety of its prisoners. Ratcliff at p.140. Here, there was no breach of duty and Respondent clearly used reasonable care in breaking up a fight between inmates. Claimant also failed to prove he sustained medical expenses and emotional distress amounting to $45,000.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this claim is Denied.
ORDER
Sprague, C.J.
It is hereby ordered that Claimant’s Petition for Rehearing is hereby denied.