Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Martin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2005-Ohio-4461.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
www.cco.state.oh.us
SHAWN MARTIN :
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2003-04899
Judge J. Craig Wright
Magistrate Anderson M. Renick
:
MAGISTRATE DECISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, alleging
negligence.
The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated
and the case was tried to a magistrate of the court on the issue of
liability.1
{¶ 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 worked as a cooking assistant in the kitchen at
Belmont Correctional Institution (BeCI) where he helped prepare
meals for other inmates.
by
Corrections
Officer
On July 10, 2002, plaintiff was directed
(CO)
Brian
Boston,
a
food
service
coordinator, to prepare butter by blending it with hot water in a
large mixer.
Plaintiff estimated that he had performed this task
about ten times before the day of the incident.
After Boston
provided him with butter, plaintiff filled a 28-gallon “Rubbermaid”
plastic container with hot water from a large heating appliance
1
On April 4, 2005, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s March 31,
2005, filing that directed the court’s attention to two decisions from this court
and included a copy of one of those decisions.
The court notes that both
decisions were referenced in the parties’ closing arguments and, for that reason,
defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.
Case No. 2003-04899
-2-
known as a “tilt skillet.”
MAGISTRATE DECISION
The plastic container was equipped with
wheels, which plaintiff pulled approximately ten feet to the
location of the mixer.
Plaintiff testified that he had turned away
from the plastic container and toward the mixer when he felt a
“stinging” sensation that was caused by hot water spilling from the
container onto his legs.
Plaintiff sustained severe burns to his
hands, arms, legs, and buttocks when he slipped and fell onto the
wet floor.
{¶ 3} Plaintiff was initially treated at BeCI inmate health
services and was later transported to The Ohio State University
Hospital for further treatment of his burns.
{¶ 4} Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to properly train
and supervise him and that as a result of this failure, he
attempted to transport heated water in a plastic container which
buckled and spilled the water that caused his burns.
Defendant
maintains that plaintiff received adequate training and that his
own negligent handling of the hot water was the cause of his
injuries.
{¶ 5} 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; Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.
(1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77.
law duty of reasonable care.
482.
Defendant owed plaintiff the common
Justice v. Rose (1957), 102 Ohio App.
Reasonable care is that which would be utilized by an
ordinarily prudent person under similar circumstances.
Murphy v.
Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-132, 2002Ohio-5170, at ¶13.
A duty arises when a risk is reasonably
Case No. 2003-04899
foreseeable.
-3-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
Menifee, supra, at 75.
Such a duty includes the
responsibility to exercise reasonable care to protect inmates
against those unreasonable risks of physical harm associated with
institutional work assignments. Boyle v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr. (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 590, 592.
{¶ 6} While the court is cognizant of a “special relationship”
between an inmate and his custodian, no higher standard of care is
derived from the relationship.
App.3d 132.
Clemets v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio
The state is not an insurer of the safety of its
prisoners; however, once it becomes aware of a dangerous condition
in the prison, it is required to take the degree of reasonable care
necessary to protect the prisoner from harm.
Id.
“*** [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.
{¶ 7} Boston
testified
that
at
the
time
of
the
incident
plaintiff had worked as a cooking assistant for “a couple months.”
Boston further testified that he did not witness the incident
because
he
was
supervising
another
plaintiff began preparing the butter.
area
of
the
kitchen
when
Boston stated that he became
aware that plaintiff had been injured when he saw plaintiff jumping
and heard him exclaim that he had been burned.
Boston testified
that inmate John Smith told him that he had witnessed the accident.
Boston directed another CO to escort plaintiff to the inmate
health services office.
{¶ 8} Boston also testified regarding the equipment that was
used by the inmate workers and kitchen training procedures.
Boston
explained that the tilt skillet was equipped with a thermostat that
Case No. 2003-04899
-4-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
could be adjusted to reach a temperature of 420°F and that it was
used to boil and to store water for food preparation.
{¶ 9} With regard to plaintiff’s training, Boston testified that
plaintiff signed an orientation list that was used to document
required training in kitchen safety.
Boston also identified
plaintiff’s training records that showed that he had received
printed orientation materials that included a booklet entitled
“About Kitchen Safety.”
learned
the
process
of
Boston testified that plaintiff had
preparing
butter
through
“on-the-job
training.”
{¶ 10}
In contrast to Boston’s testimony, plaintiff testified
that he did not receive orientation training and that he merely
made check marks on the orientation training list when he was
directed to do so.
Plaintiff testified that he had not been
trained to prepare butter or to complete other kitchen tasks and
that he had learned how to perform those duties by watching other
inmates.
{¶ 11}
The trial testimony was also contradictory on whether
defendant was aware of the practice of using the plastic containers
to carry hot water.
Both Boston and Kathleen Beigler, the food
service manager, testified that they had never observed an inmate
use
the
plastic
containers
to
transport
hot
water.
Boston
testified that it was improper for workers to handle hot water in
such a manner and that defendant’s employees should not have
allowed the containers to be used for that purpose.
However,
plaintiff testified that Boston had observed him using the plastic
container to transfer water to the mixer and that other inmates had
previously used the same procedure to transport hot water.
Case No. 2003-04899
{¶ 12}
-5-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the use of plastic
containers by inmate workers was supported by two other inmates,
Nicholas Robinson and Steven Miller, and by an Ohio State Highway
Patrol trooper who investigated the incident.
Both Robinson and
Miller testified that they had observed other inmates use the
plastic containers to obtain hot water from the tilt skillet.
Miller testified that he had seen hot water poured into the
containers “quite a few times,” and Robinson testified that on the
day of the incident he had put hot water in one of the containers
to clean pots and pans.
Trooper Mark Stelzer, an investigator
assigned to the district that includes BeCI, testified that he
interviewed a CO at BeCI who stated that “it was not uncommon” for
the containers to be used for that purpose.
Although Stelzer did
not recall the name of the CO who made that statement, he did
recall the substance of the interview.
Stelzer further testified
that he interviewed inmate John Smith and that Smith reported that
he had observed the plastic container collapse.
Stelzer did not
identify any other witness to the incident.
{¶ 13}
Based upon the foregoing testimony, the court finds
that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he
and other inmate kitchen workers occasionally used the plastic
containers to hold water that had been heated in the tilt skillet
and that defendant’s employees allowed plaintiff to transfer the
hot water from the tilt skillet to the mixer in a hazardous manner.
The court further finds that defendant knew of the practice and
that the practice created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of
harm to plaintiff.
Indeed, BeCI’s food service coordinator and its
food service manager testified that kitchen workers should not have
been allowed to use the plastic containers to carry hot water.
The
Case No. 2003-04899
-6-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
court concludes that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care
to protect plaintiff from harm by failing to adequately train him
and by failing to properly supervise his work in the kitchen.
{¶ 14}
Although the court finds that defendant was negligent,
Ohio’s comparative negligence statute, former R.C. 2315.19, is
applicable.2
CO Captain Larry Dyer, the shift commander on the day
of the incident, testified that he reviewed the video that was
taken by a security camera located in the kitchen in an attempt to
determine if any “foul play” was involved in causing plaintiff’s
injuries.
According to Dyer, plaintiff pulled the container across
the kitchen floor and then tripped and fell as the container tipped
over.
During his testimony, plaintiff acknowledged that he moved
the container with one hand while he used his other hand to eat a
turkey sandwich.
Dyer testified that there was no obstruction on
the floor and that he believed that plaintiff’s hand was on the tub
when he fell.
{¶ 15}
The court finds that plaintiff disregarded a potential
hazard and failed to take adequate care when he was handling the
plastic container.
Therefore, the court finds that although
plaintiff’s own negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries,
plaintiff’s negligence was not greater than defendant’s.
The court
further finds that the degree of fault attributable to plaintiff is
40 percent.
{¶ 16}
Accordingly, judgment is recommended for plaintiff with
a 40 percent reduction in any award for damages.
{¶ 17}
A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s
decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision.
2
A party
R.C. 2315.19 was repealed effective April 9, 2003; however, the statute
applies to causes of action that accrued before its repeal.
Case No. 2003-04899
-7-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
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).
___________________________________
ANDERSON M. RENICK
Magistrate
Entry cc:
Richard F. Swope
6504 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2268
Attorneys for Plaintiff
John M. Alton
175 South Third Street, Suite 360
Columbus, Ohio 43215-5100
Douglas R. Folkert
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
AMR/cmd
Filed August 10, 2005
To S.C. reporter August 29, 2005
Attorney for Defendant
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.
