Robert Hayes v. State of Illinois

OPINION

STEFFEN, J.

This claim arises from injuries sustained by Claimant, Robert Hayes, while an inmate at the Taylorville Illinois Correctional Center ("Taylorville") in Taylorville, Illinois, on October 26, 2005. Taylorville is a facility owned, operated and maintained by Respondent State of Illinois* Department of Corrections. Claimant alleges that he was injured as a result of his duties as a trustee at Taylorville when a gate located in the interlock area of the facility shut and amputated two of Claimant's fingertips. Claimant alleges that Respondent was negligent when it failed to warn him of the dangers posed by a large gate, failed to repair the gate, and, through one of its employees present at the time of the incident, ordered Claimant to close the gate in direct violation of Taylorville’s policies regarding the proximity within which inmates are allowed near a gate and/or fence line.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2005, Claimant was an inmate at Taylorville. While an inmate, Claimant worked in the property unit. His duties involved processing inmate property, performing inventory checks and filing paperwork. Claimant would also unload buses Bringing in new inmates and process those inmates* possessions as they entered the prison. On the date of his injuries, Claimant was waiting to offload [*210] one such bus. While waiting for the bus to enter the prison from an outside holding pen, a supervisor from the Bureau of Identification, Steve Barker, noticed that two interior gates were open and that these gates needed to be closed before the inmates and their property could be offloaded from the bus.

Each gate was constructed of chain link fence and round bar. They stood fifteen feet tall and were between thirty to forty feet wide. The gates operated, upon a series of wheels that served as a track for the round bar to move along. These gates were supposed to operate via an electronic closing motor, controlled from a tower. However, neither gate worked properly and had not done so for several months. As a result, both gates required someone to manually open and close them.

In addition to not repairing or removing the gates, Respondent failed to instruct its inmates or staff in the proper operation of the gates. Respondent also failed to warn or place signs warning individuals of the danger posed by the gates. It should be further noted that inmates are not allowed within five feet of the facility’s fences. Inmates are also warned that they can be shot for violating that rule.

On the date of Claimant's injury, Officer Barker began closing the gate near the cafeteria and directed Claimant to close the gate located near the vocational building. In response to Officer Barker's order, Claimant went to the gate, and began to pull it closed with both hands.

It took Claimant several tugs to get the gate to move along the track and, as he pulled the gate, its momentum increased. Claimant attempted to move out of

the gate’s way as it closed. However, the gate's locking mechanism caught his left hand and slammed shut, amputating the ends of Claimant's left middle and ring fingers.

Claimant was then taken to the nurses’ station where pressure was applied to his bleeding fingers and he was given an injection to help manage his pain. Dunn’ s Ambulance Service then picked Claimant up and drove him to St Vincent Hospital in Taylorville, Illinois. An ambulance later transported Claimant to Memorial Medical Center ("Memorial") In Springfield, Illinois.

At Memorial, Claimant received additional injections to numb the pain in his fingers. A surgeon, Dr. Nicole Summer, performed surgery to reattach the tips of Claimant's two fingers. The procedure first required that Hayes' left hand be anesthetized. Dr. Summer then trimmed the nail plate on Claimant's middle finger and reattached the tip of his finger using several sutures. Dr. Summer next attended to Claimant's ring finger. In order to reattach this finger, Dr. Summer was forced to shorten the furthermost bone oh Claimant's ring finger and pull the skin over the shortened bone. Dr. Summer then reattached the flesh using several sutures. Claimant was awake throughout the entire procedure.

[*211] Following the procedure, Dr. Summer directed the Claimant to keep his left hand elevated, his finger wrapped in clean, dry dressings and to take medication to control the pain. When he returned to Taylorville he did not return to his old cell. Rather, he was "kept in the healthcare portion of the prison for a month while recovering from his injuries. During that time, the nurses changed Claimant's bandages daily and provided him with medicine every six hours. Nevertheless, Claimant constantly felt throbbing pain in his fingers. At one point during his recovery, Claimant's injuries became infected and required antibiotics.

When Claimant followed up with Dr. Summer on November 1, 2005, Dr. Summer noted Claimant's loss of soft tissue and right ring finger's fingernail shortening, but found that the fingers were otherwise in good condition. Claimant was still suffering from throbbing pain and continued to take prescription pain medication.

Claimant returned to Dr. Summer again on November 15, 2005. On this visit, Dr. Summer removed the sutures she had Used to attach Claimant's flingers, noted his scabbing and directed him to return in several weeks. Once the stitches were removed, Claimant's fingers were discolored and disfigured.

Dr. Summer last saw Claimant on December 13, 2005. In her notes, Dr. Summer noted the deformities in Claimant's fingers and nails. Dr. Summer farther reported a loss of soft tissue underneath the ring finger's nail and that this was a source of pain. Dr. Summer advised Claimant that the deformities and pain in his fingers could resolve with time, but would require additional procedures to address his ongoing complaints. At the time of Claimants last visit, his fingers still bled upon exertion. They continued to be discolored and they continued to be deformed and extremely sensitive to any form of contact.

Prior to the hearing, Claimant submitted all of his medical records and medical billing for which totaled $7,664.26. Claimant admits that Respondent has paid these bills; however, they arc evidence and are appropriate for this Court to consider in an award of damages.

As discussed, Claimant underwent almost two months of medical treatment to attempt to repair his severed fingers. Claimant testified that as a result of his injuries he has lost strength in his left ring finger. This lack in strength has affected his ability to lift objects and exercise.

The finger is also far more sensitive and suffers -from repeated blood blisters paused by any significant contact. Each of these blisters is painful and lasts for two to three weeks. Claimant testified that the tip of his middle finger is completely numb and is significantly weaker than it was. This also affects his ability to lift objects using nig left hand. Claimant further testified that the deformities of both of his fingers are a source of embarrassment for him.

[*212] ANALYSIS

Respondent owes a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to provide them with safe, working conditions to perform their assigned tasks. Jones v. State, 45Ill.Ct.Cl. 90, 92 (1993). To prevail, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had a duty to protect Claimant from harm, that Respondent breached that duty of care and that the negligence of Respondent was the proximate cause of Claimant's injuries. Ratcliff v. State, 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 137, 140 (1995).

Claimant must also prove Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that a dangerous condition existed prior to the incident. Id. at 142.

In this claim, a dangerous condition (a large gate intended to be controlled by a motorized winch) caused Claimant's serious injuries’ and Respondent knew of the dangerous condition, but failed to repair it Officer Barker was aware that the gate was malfunctioning and nevertheless directed Claimant to close the gate. Claimant would not have been closing the gate and the Respondent's guards would not allow Claimant to operate the gate unless he had been directed by Officer Barker.

In Reddock v.

State, 32 IL.Ct.Cl. 611, 614 (1978), the Court recognized that an inmate of a penal institution is not ordinarily free to refuse to perform a task if he considers his working conditions unsafe.

CONCLUSION

This Court finds that Claimant has met his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to warn of the dangers posed by the gate, and that he was ordered to close the gate, which resulted in the injuries he sustained. The Court further finds that Claimant was not contributory negligent.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Claimant, Robbie Hayes, be awarded damages in the amount of $40,000.00 as full compensation for his injury of October 26, 2015.