Seymour v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Seymour v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2004-Ohio-3818.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO BRUCE SEYMOUR : Plaintiff : v. CASE NO. 2001-09869 Magistrate Steven A. Larson : MAGISTRATE DECISION DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶1} Plaintiff brought this action against defendant alleging a claim of negligence. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. {¶2} At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), negligently instructed and trained him to operate a Hobart vegetable slicer and that, as a result, he sustained bodily injury. {¶3} On April 4, 2000, plaintiff was assigned to work in the vegetable preparation area; prior to that date he worked as a kitchen porter. On plaintiff s first day in the preparation area, April 6, 2000, he arrived late. His next day at work, April 8, was the day of the accident. {¶4} Plaintiff testified that on April 6 he was told by Mark Robison, the vegetable preparation coordinator, to break down boxes in the rear area. He claims he did not assist with vegetable preparation that day, because he had arrived late. Plaintiff explained that on April 8 he reported to Vicki Aberts, the food service Case No. 2001-09869 -2- MAGISTRATE DECISION coordinator, who told him to slice lettuce but that Aberts did not show him how to operate the vegetable slicer. After about 10 or 15 minutes plaintiff said that his fingers were injured when they caught in the slicer blade. He then reported to Aberts whereupon she escorted him to the dispensary. {¶5} Aberts testified that on the day of the accident, plaintiff told her that he had operated the machine before, but that she explained to plaintiff basic machine operation, pointing out that his fingers could be easily caught in the blade unless he was careful. {¶6} Robison testified that on April 6, he gave plaintiff verbal and visual training. He stated that he demonstrated how to set up the slicer, but that he did fill out and sign a training form used by the prison to document the training. {¶7} William Carmean, the safety coordinator, testified that while investigating this incident, he looked for a completed training form but could not find one. He also testified that the slicer was working properly and that all guards were in place. {¶8} Plaintiff s claim sets forth a single cognizable action, sounding in negligence. In order for plaintiff to prevail upon his claim of negligence, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Strother v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285. {¶9} In the special relationship between the state and its prisoners, the state owes prisoners a duty of reasonable care and protection from unreasonable risks of harm. v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 132, 136. Clemets Reasonable care is that which would be utilized by an ordinary prudent person under certain circumstances. Smith v. United Properties, Inc. Case No. 2001-09869 (1965), 2 Ohio -3St.2d 310. MAGISTRATE DECISION An inmate laborer, such as plaintiff in the case at bar, is not an employee of the state for purposes of R.C. Chapter 4113. Fondern v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1977), 51 Ohio App.2d 180, 183-4. *** [W]here a prisoner also performs labor for the state, the duty owed by the state must be defined in the context of those additional facts which characterize the particular work performed. McCoy v. Engle (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 204, 208. {¶10} The court finds that defendant owed plaintiff a duty to adequately train him on the operation of the vegetable slicer and to warn him of the potential risks associated with its operation. The court also finds that even assuming defendant did instruct plaintiff in relation to the Hobart vegetable slicer, there was insufficient emphasis placed on operational instruction and the importance of safety. The court concludes that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care to protect plaintiff from harm by failing to adequately instruct plaintiff on the proper operation of the vegetable slicer. {¶11} Although negligent, Ohio s the court comparative finds that negligence defendant was statute, R.C. 2315.19, bars plaintiff from recovery if his contributory negligence is greater (more than 50 percent) than defendant s negligence. In this case, the court finds that plaintiff disregarded a potential hazard and failed to use common sense when he inserted his hand into the chute of the slicer. The court concludes that plaintiff has proven that defendant breached its contributory duty of negligence reasonable attributable care; to however, plaintiff is the 40 Case No. 2001-09869 percent. -4- MAGISTRATE DECISION Accordingly, judgment is recommended for plaintiff with a 40 percent reduction in any future damages award. {¶12} A party may file written objections to the magistrate s decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court s adoption of any finding or conclusion of law contained in the magistrate s decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3). ________________________________ STEVEN A. LARSON Magistrate Entry cc: Richard F. Swope 6504 East Main Street Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2268 Attorney for Plaintiff William C. Becker Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendant LM/cmd Filed June 22, 2004 To S.C. reporter July 19, 2004
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
