Erskine Deloach v. State of Illinois

This claim is before the Court upon a recommendation from the assigned Commissioner following an evidentiary hearing.

INTRODUCTION

The Claimant is an inmate at the Illinois Department of Corrections facility located in Menard, Illinois. Claimant brought this action to recover monetary damages for an injury he sustained when a fan fell on him from the ceiling of one of the dining halls at the correctional facility. Claimant alleges that Respondent was negligent by failing to provide a safe environment and subsequent adequate medical care. Claimant seeks $30,000 in damages for pain and suffering.

FACTS

The undisputed facts are that on June 1, 2012, Claimant was seated in the west dining hall of the Menard facility when, without warning, a fan fell from the ceiling, located 15 to 20 feet above Claimant, and struck Claimant causing injury to his neck, shoulder and left leg. Prior to the ceiling fan falling and injuring Claimant, neither the Claimant nor Respondent had any indication that the fan was in a defective condition.

Immediately

after the incident, Claimant was taken to the hospital of the facility where Claimant received medical treatment. Four days later, on June 5, 2012, Claimant underwent x-rays of his shoulder at the health care clinic. On June 8 and July 6 of 2012, Claimant returned to the health care clinic for treatment of his shoulder, at which time Claimant was given exercise instructions and told to return if he encountered further problems. Claimant did not undergo any other medical treatment with respect to his injuries sustained from the incident. As a result of the incident, Claimant suffered no broken bones but testified that he suffered, and continues to suffer, from a great deal of pain in his neck, back and shoulder, which pain is treated with Motrin and Tylenol.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

This Court has repeatedly held that the State of Illinois owes a duty to the inmates of a penal institution to provide them with reasonably safe conditions in which to work and a safe place to live. Williams v. State, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 400, 403 (2003); Reddock v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 611, 613 (1978). When an injury is caused by an instrumentality under the State's control, and when the injury is one that would not occur in the ordinary course of things had the State exercised proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence that, in the absence of some alternative explanation, the accident arose from the State's want of due care. Williams, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 400, 403 (2003); Thornton v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. CL 272, 275 (1993).

[*159] The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing regarding the nature of the accident, in that a fan fell from the ceiling for no reason and without warning, dictates that this claim proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Jones v. State, Case No. 09 CC 0208 (2011); Enyart v. State, 57 Ill. Ct. Cl. 202 (2004); Wiegers v. State, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 88 (1988). To invoke this doctrine, Claimant must establish that the accident itself affords reasonable evidence that it would not have ordinarily occurred in the absence of someone's negligence; that the instrumentality which caused the injury is within the exclusive control of the Respondent; and that Claimant was free from contributory negligence.

Wiegers, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 91. This Court finds that Claimant has established the requirements necessary to invoke the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and a presumption of negligence is established against Respondent.

Once the presumption of negligence is established, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to rebut the presumption. Wieger, 40 Ill.Ct.Cl. 91. In this case, Respondent failed to provide any evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence imputed in this matter. As such, this Court finds that Respondent breached its duty of due care to Claimant.

This Court directs its attention to a similar case of Williams v. State, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 400 (2003), as particular guidance in evaluating the matter at hand. In Williams (55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 400), the claimant was an inmate who was injured when a light fixture fell from the ceiling of the day room of a correctional facility. Williams, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 400-401. The evidence established that the light fixture fell with no prior warning and for no apparent reason.

Williams, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 401. The Court in Williams (55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 400), awarded the claimant damages for his injuries finding that a light fixture would not fall from the ceiling in the ordinary course of events and that the accident impliedly arose from the State's want of care. Williams, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. at 403.

The case at hand is indistinguishable from the case in Williams (55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 400). In this case, the fan that injured Claimant was under the exclusive control of Respondent and was not under Claimant's control in any way. The ceiling fan fell with no prior warning and for no apparent reason. In the ordinary course of events, this ceiling fan would not have fallen and injured Claimant.

As such, the Respondent is presumed negligent.

Respondent

failed to rebut this presumption in that Respondent provided no alternative explanation for the incident or any evidence to establish that proper care and maintenance of the fan was undertaken.

Although Respondent argues that Claimant must prove that the Respondent was provided some form of notice, actual or constructive, of the fan's defect for liability to attach, this Court finds that this argument is without merit. As stated above, the nature of this accident, being one without explanation and the fan being an instrument under the exclusive control of the Respondent, dictates that this claim be evaluated under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. As explained above, such a theory presumes negligence, with or without notice, and the burden is thereby shifted to Respondent to rebut the presumption.

In addition, the cases cited by Respondent in support of the notice requirement are distinguishable or misplaced. The case of Rossett v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 118 (1985), is distinguishable in that the accident in Rossett involved the claimant falling down the stairs of the State of Illinois Capitol Building. Such incident, which involves the claimant's [*160] contributory negligence, does not dictate an analysis under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which doctrine, as explained above, is void of any notice requirement.

Respondent also directs this Court to the case of Williams, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1 (1999)1, in advancing its argument that notice is required in this matter. In Williams (52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1), an inmate of one of Respondent's correctional facilities was injured when a fan cover fell from the ceiling while he was playing cards in the inmate dining room. Williams, 52 Ill. Ct.

Cl. at 2. Similar to the instant matter, the fan cover fell without warning and the claimant had not tampered with the fan cover prior to its fall, but was un-luckily positioned underneath the fan cover when it fell. Williams, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 9. Dissimilar to the instant matter, the evidence in Williams established that other inmates were known to tamper with fans of the facility and attempted to steal pieces of the fans in order to make weapons.

The Williams case (52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1) was analyzed by this Court under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and although this Court found in favor of the claimant in Williams, Respondent argues that since the evidence established that the State had notice that other inmates tampered with the fans of the facility, notice is therefore a required element in such cases, including the instant case. Respondent's position in this vein is misplaced and without merit. In Williams (52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1), the State presented the evidence of tampering to avoid liability, not to prove notice, arguing that the illegal and destructive acts of the third party inmates were the intervening cause of the claimant's injuries.

The State did not introduce this evidence to establish that the State had notice of any defective condition of the fan cover at issue. As such, this Court will not infer that the Williams case (52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1) requires notice in such matters evaluated under a theory of res ipsa loquitur.

Moreover, the Williams case (52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1) supports this Court's instant decision in that the Court in Williams (52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1) also found the State liable for the claimant's injuries finding that a fan cover would not ordinarily fall from the ceiling unless the State had breached its duty top rovide reasonably safe living conditions f or its i nmates. Williams, 52 Ill. Ct.

Cl. at 8-9.

As the facts in this matter afford a presumption of the Respondent's negligence, and the Respondent has failed to put forth any evidence to rebut the presumption, this Court finds that Respondent breached its duty to provide Claimant with safe living conditions and the Claimant prevails on his claim in this regard.

Claimant also seeks damages for inadequate medical treatment.

Claimant's claim in this regard fails.

Allegations of improper medical care must be proven by expert testimony and the Court may not conclude on its own what is or what is not appropriate medical care under the circumstances of the case without the aid of such expert testimony.

Tackett v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 334 (1993). In addition, Claimant has failed to overcome certain procedural challenges associated with such medical claims in that Claimant has failed to prove that he exhausted his remedies against the health care clinic and its medical providers, which serve as independent contractors and not agents of Respondent. (See 705 ILCS 505/25; 74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.60). As such, Claimant is not entitled to damages for his claim of improper medical care.

1 This Court notes that this particular Williams case, cited as 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1 (1999), is separate and distinct from the Williams case, cited as 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 400 (2003), referenced above and utilized by this Court for guidance on the decision in the case at hand.

[*161] With respect to damages for pain and suffering, without any competent medical testimony proving that his condition is permanent, this Court cannot award Claimant future damages for pain and suffering. It is reasonable however, that a fan falling from a ceiling onto Claimant would cause Claimant pain. After review of the limited evidence submitted with respect to damages, we find that Claimant is entitled to $1,500 for the pain and suffering he endured from the date of the incident, June 1, 2012, to the present date.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Claimant be awarded $1,500.00.