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.