Gregory Williams v. State of Illinois

OPINION

SPRAGUE, J. Gregory Williams (“Claimant”) filed a complaint on or about September 4, 2020, against the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Corrections (“Respondent” or “State”) seeking an award of $100,000 for damages he allegedly suffered as a result of negligence by the State in failing to maintain a safe and healthy living environment while he was incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections. A hearing on the merits took place on November 3, 2021, March 24, 2022, and was concluded on August 19, 2022. The hearing took place via video, and a transcript of the proceedings was finalized on September 11, 2022.

FACTS

At all relevant times, Claimant was an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections and incarcerated at the Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”).

On January 14, 2020, Claimant was in the yard at Pontiac doing his daily routine of exercising and walking. Claimant was standing near the concrete wall surrounding the yard when a portion of the wall broke off and fell on him, striking him on the neck and shoulder, and knocking him to the ground. Claimant made his way toward a guard tower to signal for help. An ambulance cart eventually came to the yard, a neck brace was put on Claimant, and he was transported to Pontiac’s infirmary. Claimant testified the concrete slab was about 2 feet wide and half a foot thick, weighing between 25-30 pounds.

At the hearing on March 24, 2022, a video was presented by Respondent. Claimant viewed the video and denied that it depicted what happened on the day of incident. Specifically, Claimant testified that other inmates helped him up to get him away from the wall “because the wall was coming down.” He further testified that he fell a couple of times as they helped him. Those actions were not depicted in the video. The hearing was continued for the State to provide a witness to lay a foundation for the video.

At the continuation of the hearing on August 19, 2022, Lieutenant Newbury testified about recording the video of the incident. He testified that when he was notified of a medical emergency on the yard, he took steps to save the video capturing the incident. Lieutenant Newbury further testified that the video does not show Claimant on a medical vehicle because that happened after he left the yard, which is not captured on the video feed he saved. After viewing the video and having the opportunity to question Lieutenant Newbury, Claimant admitted the video depicted what happened on the day of the incident (absent what took place off camera when he was taken to the infirmary), and the video was entered into evidence. [*257]

The video of the incident is approximately 9 minutes long, and some relevant excerpts include:

0:00 Claimant on the top left corner of the screen, walking back and forth between the wall and another inmate standing near the basketball courts.

5:45 Claimant appears to fall to the ground while near the wall. The individual he has been talking to near the basketball courts does not move.

6:15 Claimant get up on his own and starts walking toward the guard tower.

6:55 Claimant stops and leans against the wall, hunched over with arms on his knees, and talking to a group of other inmates.

7:30 Claimant continues walking toward the tower on his own.

8:15 Claimant stops walking, and hunches over again on his knees.

8:30- Claimant waives with his left and right hands to the tower. 8:50 9:00 Claimant leaves screen and video ends.

Lieutenant Lindsay testified at the hearing that he called in the incident and was present when Claimant was transported on a medical cart to the infirmary. Lieutenant Lindsay did not witness Claimant get his by the concrete, nor was he involved in the Claimant’s medical treatment.

Inmate Delbert Heard testified he was exercising in the yard on the day of the incident and saw Claimant on the ground pushing a piece of wall off his neck that had fallen on him. He then saw Claimant stagger to the tower for help, and medical personnel arrived shortly thereafter.

Prior to that day, Heard had seen pieces of the wall fall crumble into the yard.

Inmate Cortez Gilum also testified. At the time Gilum was not talking with Claimant but was standing in the vicinity. He saw a large piece of wall fall off and make contact with Claimant, knocking him to the ground and landing on his neck. Gilum testified that Claimant struggled to get up, so he and some other inmates helped him get up. Gilum further stated that he and some other inmates helped Claimant walk to the tower for help. The video played of the incident contradicts this testimony.

Gilum testified that Claimant had scratches all over the side of his neck, and visible sores from the impact, although the lacerations were not bleeding. Gilum and Claimant testified that IDOC staff took pictures of Claimant’s neck and other injuries, however these pictures were never turned over by Respondent in discovery.

Gilum testified that he had seen chunks of the wall fall off previously, particularly during rain or when birds fly into holes in the wall. Gilum described the rock that fell on Claimant was about the size of a telephone book, with one corner cut off and jagged.

[*258] Claimant suffered contusions on his shoulder and neck, which were cleaned at the infirmary.

Claimant testified that multiple x-rays were taken of his back and shoulder, and no bones were broken. Claimant was given pain medication and he stayed in the infirmary for 3-4 days.

Claimant testified he continued to receive treatment for his injuries over the years. He continues to receive muscle relaxants and Tylenol 3. Claimant testified that he continues to experience pain in his neck, has limited mobility, and has occasional numbness in his hands.

Claimant is able to life weights, but not at the level he did previously. Claimant testified he is scheduled to be transported to a hospital for a CT scan, but that has not occurred yet.

Medical records indicate the day after the incident there was no swelling or bruising, but that Claimant was experiencing pain and discomfort. Medical records support Claimant’s testimony that he continued to experience pain in his neck and shoulder, and he continued to visit the infirmary for treatment in the form of medication and physical therapy. For example, on February 23, 2021, Claimant reported to medical services that he continued to experience pain in his neck and shoulders, as well as radicular symptoms.² Claimant was provided with exercises to increase his range of motion, as well as stretching and nerve mobilizations.

In April 2021, Claimant still experiencing pain and limited movement. He was referred for a CT scan, and for further pain management. There are no records providing the results of the CT scan, and no records or testimony were entered that provide a specific diagnosis for ongoing physical symptoms being experienced by Claimant, nor a specific diagnosis of long-term physical injuries caused by the incident in the yard in January 2020.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In order to sustain a negligence claim against the State, Claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the State owed a duty, that duty was breached, and that the breach was the proximate cause of injuries. Tolbert v. State, 59 Ill. Ct. Cl. 308, 310 (2007) (citing Dye v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 452, 455 (1995)). The State owes a duty to inmates of penal institutions to provide reasonable, safe conditions, Dewitt v State of Illinois, 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254, 262 (1991).

The care and maintenance of the structure, including walls, of IDOC facilities is clearly the responsibility of IDOC, and “this Court has found that when damage has been caused by something under the Respondent’s management and the damages are such that, in the ordinary course of events, they would not have happened if the Respondent had exercised proper care, the incident itself afford reasonable evidence that the damages arose out of the Respondent’s want of due care.” Tolbert, 59 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 310 (citing Jackson v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 314 (1992)).

Claimant and other inmates testified that the walls at Pontiac had been in a state of disrepair for many years, and chunks of the wall had been falling in the yard. The failure of the State to maintain the wall in a reasonable condition, or to keep inmates from traversing areas where the wall had deteriorated, was the proximate case of Claimant’s injury.

Respondent did not contest that the poor condition of the wall resulted in Claimant’s injury, and instead argued that the danger presented by the facility’s deteriorating walls was an open and obvious danger that should have been avoided by Claimant. However, there was no evidence that the particular section of the wall where the incident occurred posed an open and obvious danger to Claimant. The fact that inmates and guards were aware the walls were in poor ² Radicular symptoms are typically tingling or weakness in the arm often caused by compression of a nerve. [*259] condition, generally, does not give rise to an obligation on the part of Claimant to stay away from all walls in the facility where he is incarcerated. Based on the evidence presented, the State is liable for causing injury to the Claimant.

The extent of the injuries caused is much harder to ascertain based on the evidence presented. The video entered into evidence shows Claimant being knocked to the ground and struggling to make his way back to the tower to call for help. The video does not support Claimant and inmate Gilum's testimony that Claimant needed assistance to walk over to the tower. Further, Claimant lifts his arms to get the attention of the tower before he leaves the screen for medical treatment, including briefly raising his injured right arm.

Claimant's medical records support his testimony that he has been receiving ongoing treatment for pain and discomfort in his neck and shoulder since the incident. However, it does not establish a specific condition or long-term disability caused by the incident in January 2020.

In Williams v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 400 (2003), an inmate was struck on the back of the head and upper back by a light fixture which fell from the ceiling at a correctional facility. The fixture was approximately 10 feet above the floor and was approximately 5 feet long and 10 inches wide. He suffered no loss of consciousness, bleeding, bruising, or scarring, and there was no evidence of any broken bones. Williams was diagnosed with a mild concussion and suffered short-term pain and discomfort as a result of the accident. The Court concluded that Williams' injuries were relatively minor but granted him an award of $950.00.

In Fayson v. State of Illinois, 54 Ill. Ct. Cl. 435 (2001), an inmate was injured when a window weighing approximately 100 pounds fell on him while he was sleeping. The window struck his chin, and he received four stitches. The Respondent's evidence rebutted Fayson's claims of permanent disability and more extensive injuries, and Fayson was awarded $400 for his injuries.

Claimant in this case is entitled to an award, but like Williams and Fayson, the evidence presented has not established any permanent injuries or long-term disabilities caused by the incident. Claimant's injuries are comparable to William and Fayson, but he is granted additional monies due to the passage of time since those decisions. Claimant is awarded $1,000.

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, Claimant is granted an award in the amount of $1,000.