Nichols v. Indian River Juvenile Correctional Facility
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Nichols v. Indian River Juvenile Correctional Facility, 2005-Ohio-2541.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MICHAEL NICHOLS, : Plaintiff : v. : INDIAN RIVER JUVENILE CORECTIONAL FACILITY, CASE NO. 2004-06852 Judge J. Craig Wright : : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} This case was tried from April 25-27, 2005 on Plaintiffs claims of a workplace intentional tort and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After the close of all of the evidence and the parties closing arguments, the court announced its decision in favor of the defendant. {¶ 2} Plaintiff Michael Nichols argued that he was assaulted and injured by a youth on February 24, 2002 while working as a juvenile corrections officer on the E-unit of the Indian River Juvenile Correctional Facility because Ward Moore, the plaintiffs supervisor, failed to follow internal policies regarding when a youth is to be restrained. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that Mr. Moore should have, for example, restrained the youth before the youth attacked him because the youth had made threatening remarks to the plaintiff, and because the youth had flipped furniture in the E-unit. {¶ 3} The court rejects the plaintiff s argument that Mr. Moore did not follow the internal policies. Several witnesses, including the plaintiff, testified that Mr. Moore had the right to use his discretion to determine how to de-escalate a resistant youth. The court finds that Mr. Moore acted appropriately in his efforts to de-escalate the youth. The plaintiff s testimony that he believed the policies were not followed is not persuasive. The plaintiff simply failed to prove that the defendant committed a workplace intentional tort as defined in Gibson v. Drainage Products, Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 171, 2002-Ohio-2008. {¶ 4} The plaintiff also failed to prove that the defendant is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff argues that he was emotionally traumatized because the youth continued to taunt him. The plaintiff argues, for example, that the defendant should have transferred the youth to another juvenile correctional facility soon after the attack. However, it is well established that the court will not interfere with the classification and placement of inmates. See Bell V. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 99 5. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed.2d 447. {¶ 5} The court further finds that the plaintiff did not suffer from severe emotional distress as the result of the defendant s actions. The plaintiff had a long history of emotional problems predating the incident at issue. The plaintiff failed to prove a case of intentional infliction of emotional distress as defined by Yeager {¶ 6} v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, syllabus and Ashcroft v. Mt. Sinai Medical Ctr. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 359. {¶ 7} Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all 2 parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ___________________________________ J. CRAIG WRIGHT Judge Entry cc: Lorrie E. Fuchs P.O. Box 35787 Canton, Ohio 44735-5787 Attorney for Plaintiff Eric A. Walker Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendants Filed May 9, 2005 To S.C. reporter May 23, 2005 (This judgment entry was submitted to the court. In order to send via e-mail to Supreme Court, the judgment entry was scanned and placed in this document.) 3
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.
