McElfresh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as McElfresh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2003-Ohio-6571.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
MARK MCELFRESH
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2001-08013
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
MAGISTRATE DECISION
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION
:
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
{¶1}
This case was tried before a magistrate at the Ross
Correctional Institution (RCI) on July 22, 2002.
Plaintiff alleges
that defendant was negligent in placing plaintiff in an unsafe
working
environment.
At
all
times
relevant
to
this
action,
plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant at
the Chillicothe Correctional Institution (CCI) pursuant to R.C.
5120.16.
{¶2}
On September 9, 2000, plaintiff was working with a
carpentry crew to dismantle a temporary non-load-bearing wall on
the second floor, Room 106, of the Administration Building.
The
wall was constructed of panels made of sheet metal and tin and held
up by screws and clamps.
high by 4 feet wide.
Bottom panels were approximately 6 feet
Smaller panels, between 18 and 24 inches,
were placed on top of the bottom panel to reach the ceiling, which
was estimated to be 8 feet high.
The top was attached to the
ceiling by 4 foot sections of channeling which, when fastened
together, ran the entire length of the room.
Tin trim pieces
Case No. 2001-08013
-2-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
approximately 3 inches wide were fastened between the panels to
hide the seams.
{¶3}
Plaintiff maintains that he was struck in the head by a
piece of trim that was loosened by an inmate in the process of
dismantling
the
wall.
Plaintiff
asserts
that
defendant
was
negligent in failing to provide a safe working environment and in
not requiring hard hats to be worn to prevent injury.
{¶4}
In
order
for
plaintiff
to
prevail
on
his
claim
of
negligence, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty and
that the breach was the proximate cause of his injuries.
v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285.
Strother
Ohio law imposes
upon the state a duty of reasonable care and protection of its
inmates; however, this duty does not make defendant the insurer of
inmate safety.
Mitchell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1995),
107 Ohio App.3d 231, 235.
The duty of care owed to an inmate by
his custodian is one of ordinary care in the furtherance of the
custodial relationship.
St.2d 314.
See Jenkins v. Krieger (1981), 67 Ohio
The requisite standard of care is that which is
reasonable and ordinary for the health, care, and well being of the
prisoner.
{¶5}
Clemets v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 132.
Plaintiff testified that he had been an inmate at CCI for
four years and had worked in the carpentry shop for the past three
years.
On January 9, 2000, he was assigned to a work crew
supervised by Erin R. Rinehart.
Rinehart had been a carpentry
supervisor since December 1996 and, prior to that, a corrections
officer for 16 years.
Rinehart’s crew, consisting of plaintiff and
two other inmates, went to the administration building to assist
another crew in removing a temporary wall.
Plaintiff began working
Case No. 2001-08013
-3-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
with the other crew members to dismantle the wall and remove the
debris.
Since the wall was about 8 feet high, some of the work was
overhead.
Although hard hats were available, neither crew members
from either crew nor supervisors wore them.
{¶6}
Rinehart testified that his crew was sent to help the
other crew dismantle the wall because his crew had the experience
necessary to do the job.
Although hard hats were available to the
carpentry crew, Rinehart testified that, in his judgment, they were
not necessary for this particular job.
He explained that his crew
used hand tools such as screwdrivers, crowbars, and hammers to
remove the wall.
Although some of the work was overhead, it was
all within arm’s reach.
Rinehart admitted that he pried a piece of
tin trim loose from the wall overhead and, as it fell, one end
struck plaintiff on the head.
said
he
warned
plaintiff
(Plaintiff’s nickname.)
by
As the trim came loose, Rinehart
yelling,
“Look
out
Hoghead!”
Rinehart estimated that the trim was 4
feet in length and weighed 5 pounds.
He remembered holding one end
of the trim as it fell, therefore, he said, only one-half of the
weight of the trim struck plaintiff.
He described plaintiff’s
injury as a small red bump on his head that looked like a mosquito
bite.
Rinehart further testified that he asked plaintiff if he
wanted to go to the infirmary to have his injury treated, but
plaintiff replied, “F*** no!
Let’s get back to work.”
He resumed
work after a few minutes.
Rinehart explained that he did not
immediately report the incident because minor injuries such as
scratches, bruises, and scrapes occur daily to members of the
carpentry crew.
{¶7}
Plaintiff testified that he had been working with three
other inmates to dismantle the wall when he was hit from behind by
Case No. 2001-08013
-4-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
a piece of trim that had been pried loose by inmate Hall.
claimed that the impact knocked him to his knees.
He
He remembered
that Rinehart was standing four or five feet away and that he was
laughing.
Plaintiff testified that he walked out of the room to
regain his senses and then went to the infirmary where his wound
was cleaned and he was checked for a concussion.
Plaintiff further
testified that after being treated, he returned to the carpentry
shop but not to the job site.
{¶8}
Daniel Ray Holloway testified that he was an inmate
working with plaintiff to dismantle the wall the day plaintiff was
injured.
Holloway described the trim that struck plaintiff as
being 3½
to 4 feet in length, 3 inches in width, with an estimated
weight
of
1
supervising.
or
2
pounds.
He
recalled
that
Rinehart
was
He did not see plaintiff get hit by the trim, but
observed plaintiff rubbing his head after he was struck.
He
testified that plaintiff was asked if he wanted to go to the
infirmary and that plaintiff replied, “F*** no!
Go back to work.”
Additionally, Holloway stated that he was not wearing a hard hat
and did not consider it a necessity for the job that day.
{¶9}
Inmate Raymond D. Hall testified that he and plaintiff
were standing under a concrete pillar that ran across the top of
the ceiling, and to which the temporary wall was fastened.
He
stated that his back was turned when he heard plaintiff mutter
obscenities.
He turned to see that a piece of cosmetic trim had
struck plaintiff on the head .
5
feet
in
length
and
He estimated that the trim was 4 to
weighed
approximately
8
pounds.
Hall
testified that Reinhart had been working to loosen the trim just
prior to it falling.
After the trim struck plaintiff, Hall
recalled that plaintiff muttered obscenities, rubbed his head, and
Case No. 2001-08013
continued working.
-5-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
Hall did not remember Rinehart shouting a
warning to plaintiff prior to the trim falling.
{¶10} Inmate Vaughn William Aneshansel testified that he was
picking up bits of plank and debris from the floor when the trim
struck plaintiff.
Just prior to the trim striking plaintiff,
Ansehansel saw Rinehart working to loosen the trim with plaintiff
facing Rinehart a few feet away.
Although he did not actually see
the trim fall, Ansehansel testified that he heard Rinehart say at
least twice, “Look out Hoghead!” before it fell.
Aneshansel
explained that he turned around immediately after hearing the crash
to see plaintiff standing up rubbing his head.
Aneshansel further
remembers Rinehart asking plaintiff if he wanted to go to the
infirmary and that plaintiff responded, “F*** that!
Let’s work.”
{¶11} The evidence is uncontroverted that plaintiff was struck
on the head by a piece of tin trim while working to remove a
temporary wall.
be
However, the court finds plaintiff’s testimony to
that
unreliable in several respects.
Rinehart
loosened
the
piece
For example, the court finds
of
trim
that
fell
and
hit
plaintiff; that the force of the impact did not knock plaintiff to
his knees; that plaintiff suffered a minor injury for which he did
not seek any medical attention, and that he went back to work on
the project after he was hit by the trim.
{¶12} Plaintiff’s testimony established that plaintiff had
three years of experience on the carpentry crew prior to his
injury.
His crew, supervised by Rinehart, worked almost daily on
construction projects which, because of the nature of the work,
often resulted in minor injuries.
Rinehart, who had years of
experience supervising construction crews, testified that hard hats
were available, but that they were not necessary for the job of
Case No. 2001-08013
-6-
removing the temporary wall.
MAGISTRATE DECISION
Holloway, an inmate crew member
called as a witness by plaintiff, also testified that hard hats
were not necessary for the job.
Further, there is no evidence that
plaintiff requested a hard hat for the job or was denied use of
one.
Finally, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to
prove that failing to require crew members to wear hard hats
violated
Administrative
Regulation
4121:3-03(A)(4),
under
the
circumstances presented.
{¶13} In
short,
upon
review
of
the
evidence,
the
court
concludes that plaintiff has failed to show, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that defendant was negligent in failing to provide
him with a hard hat for the job.
{¶14} For reasons set forth above, judgment is recommended in
favor of defendant.
{¶15} 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
Attorney for Plaintiff
Eric A. Walker
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Attorney for Defendant
Case No. 2001-08013
Columbus, Ohio
43215-3130
SAL/cmd
Filed 11-24-2003
To S.C. reporter December 9, 2003
-7-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
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.
