Opinion
# 2001-048-503 Claim No. 113915
09-26-2011
EARL COLEMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
After a trial, Defendant was found 50% liable for injuries sustained when, without first taking the necessary precautions to ascertain Claimant's location, a correctional officer shut a cell door injuring Claimant's finger. Case information
UID: 2001-048-503 Claimant(s): EARL COLEMAN Claimant short name: COLEMAN Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 113915 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: GLEN T. BRUENING Claimant's attorney: EARL COLEMAN, Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Joan Matalavage, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 26, 2011 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Earl Coleman, Claimant in this case appearing pro se, seeks to recover damages for personal injuries he suffered on May 7, 2007 at Eastern Correctional Facility operated at that time by the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS").
DOCS is now known as the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Inasmuch as the Claim relates to acts that occurred prior to the name change, this Decision will refer to the Executive Agency by its former name.
On that date, Claimant alleges that, while he was attempting to exit his cell for the noon meal, Correctional Officer Nicholas Lapp negligently and without regard to Claimant's whereabouts, closed the cell door, causing Claimant to sustain injuries to his fifth digit on his right hand. A trial on the Claim was held at Eastern Correctional Facility on July 15, 2011. Claimant testified on his own behalf and Officer Lapp testified on behalf of Defendant. Without objection from defense counsel, Claimant entered two documents into evidence, including a one-page document entitled "State of New York Department of Correctional Services Diagnostic Testing Notification" and a one-page report dated May 7, 2007 authored by Officer Lapp. In addition, at Defendant's request and with Claimant's consent, the Court conducted an inspection of the South Hall cellblock at Eastern Correctional Facility and, in particular, Claimant's cell at the time within that cellblock.
The undisputed testimony establishes that, on May 7, 2007, Claimant was an inmate housed at the South Hall cellblock at Eastern Correctional Facility and had been housed there for over four years. The South Hall cellblock consists of four stacked levels of 28 cells along a row. Each cell door is made of metal bars with open space between the bars and is recessed into the wall approximately 18 inches. Each cell has a window which is also made of metal bars and recessed into the cell wall. Between the window and the cell door is a two foot wide brick partition where the cell's deadbolt locking mechanism is located. To lock the cell door, the operator is required to push the cell door so that the deadbolt lines up with its corresponding hole.
On the date of the incident, Claimant resided in cell 9-19 on the first floor of the South Hall cellblock and Officer Lapp was a "9 company officer" assigned to that cellblock. In conjunction with that assignment, Officer Lapp's duties included, among other things, taking the inmates to "chow" for the noon meal. To effectuate this, Officer Lapp would open the cell doors in the South Hall cellblock and permit the inmates to gather their belongings. Officer Lapp would then walk back in the opposite direction to lock each cell and note which inmates stayed in their cell. The inmates would then be taken to chow. Claimant had followed this same procedure for the noon meal since he began residing at the South Hall cellblock over four years earlier. On the date in question, Officer Lapp opened the inmate cells at the South Hall cellblock in preparation for the noon meal. After opening the cells, Officer Lapp proceeded to walk back to lock the cells. After locking nine cell doors, Officer Lapp reached Claimant's cell. Officer Lapp pushed Claimant's cell door shut with his foot, shutting Claimant's finger in the cell door. Claimant was immediately taken to the infirmary and then to a hospital where he received one suture to his fifth digit on his right hand.
At trial, Claimant testified that there was no specific time period for inmates to gather their belongings and exit the cell after the cell door had been opened in preparation for the noon meal. Claimant testified that he was in the process of exiting his cell, but reached back to grab his "net bag" when Officer Lapp pushed the cell door closed with Claimant's finger in the way. Claimant testified that he was unaware that Officer Lapp had come back to lock his cell door. The one-page report dated May 7, 2007, authored by Officer Lapp and entered into evidence, states that when the Officer "got to 9-19 cell [he] didn't see an inmate in the cell and door was still open. At that time I put my right foot on the door and pushed it closed. I then heard inmate Coleman yell and come out of the cell holding his finger. He said 'You closed my finger in the door!' " On cross-examination, Claimant testified that he was not aware that his finger was near the cell door when he reached back to grab his "net bag." Claimant further testified that he signed a statement as part of an inmate injury report in which he stated that the Officer was coming to close the cell door and the injury occurred when, at the same time the Officer was pushing the cell door closed, Claimant was pushing the cell door open. Claimant asserts that his injury occurred because Officer Lapp did not properly check to confirm that Claimant had left the cell.
Officer Lapp, a seventeen year employee of DOCS, testified that he provides inmates with approximately ten minutes after opening the cell doors to gather their belongings in preparation for the noon meal. Officer Lapp testified that when he arrived at Claimant's cell to lock it, the door was ajar but he did not see Claimant through the door or window. Officer Lapp further testified that the door had to be pushed and held closed in order to lock it.
To succeed in his claim of negligence, Claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that (1) Defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to Claimant (see Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579, 584 [1994]); (2) Defendant breached that duty (see Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 65 NY2d 399, 402 [1985]); and (3) that Defendant's breach of that duty was a substantial cause of events that produced Claimant's injury (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]; see also Ranaudo v Key, 83 AD3d 1315, 1316 [3d Dept 2011]).
The State owes a duty of care to protect inmates within its custody from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm, but it is not an insurer of inmate safety (see Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 252-253 [2002]; see also Reid v State of New York, 61 AD3d 1063, 1064 [3d Dept 2009]). Moreover, such duty does not require constant surveillance in all cases, and negligence cannot be inferred from the mere happening of an injury (see Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d at 256). In this context, foreseeability is defined by actual or constructive notice, in other words, by what the State knew or had reason to know or what the State was or should have been aware of at the time of the incident (id. at 255). It is irrelevant that greater precautions could have been taken to prevent Claimant's injury if the injury was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the incident (see Gordon v City of New York, 70 NY2d 839, 841 [1987]). Accordingly, whether Defendant had a duty to take steps to prevent Claimant from injuring himself depends upon whether the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
In this case, Claimant's injuries were reasonably foreseeable based on the evidence that Defendant knew or had reason to know that, after the cell doors were opened in preparation for the noon meal, an inmate may be in the process of gathering his belongings and may still be in his cell before the cell door would thereafter be closed and locked. Moreover, if Officer Lapp had looked through the doorway or the cell's window prior to shutting the door, the Court concludes that, based on the size and configuration of the cell, the location of the door and window, and the fact that he had to hold it closed to lock it, he would have seen the Claimant still in the cell near or in the doorway. Based on the evidence, the Court finds that Officer Lapp failed to take the necessary reasonable precautions to ascertain Claimant's location before shutting the cell door. Therefore, Claimant has established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant was negligent in shutting Claimant's cell door without first ascertaining Claimant's whereabouts.
However, in its answer, Defendant has pleaded the affirmative defense that Claimant's own "culpable conduct" caused or contributed to the injuries claimed (see CPLR §§ 1411 and 1412) which, if proven, operates to reduce the amount of damages otherwise recoverable by the proportion which a Claimant's culpable conduct bears to the conduct which caused the damages (see CPLR § 1411; Flynn v City of New York, 103 AD2d 98, 100 [2d Dept 1984]). Along these lines, a Claimant has the duty to use reasonable care to observe his or her surroundings and will be "bound to see what by the proper use of her senses she might have seen" (Weigand v United Traction Co., 221 NY 39, 42 [1917]). Ultimately, the question of contributory negligence comes down to whether a reasonable person would have acted as Claimant did in the situation under consideration (see Meade v OTA Hotel Owner LP, 76 AD3d 470, 473 [1st Dept 2010]). Here, the Court determines that Claimant was also negligent and should share an equal amount of culpability for his injuries. During the over four years that he resided in the South Hall cellblock, the same daily routine was undertaken for opening, shutting and locking the cell doors in preparation for the noon meal. The evidence establishes that on the day of the accident, Officer Lapp had already closed and locked nine cells when he came upon Claimant's cell to do the same. At the time Officer Lapp proceeded to shut Claimant's cell door, Claimant testified that he reached for his "net bag," placing his hand near the door's frame where it was likely to be injured. Thus, Claimant cannot avoid an equal measure of responsibility for failing to exercise reasonable care to avoid his accident. Accordingly, the Court apportions 50% of the liability for this accident to Defendant and 50% to Claimant.
At the trial of this action, Claimant testified that, in addition to the one suture he received, he was told that he had sustained a fracture. Claimant testified that his injured finger still throbs under certain conditions, including when pressure or cold is applied to the site. Claimant offered no medical evidence of any fracture, of any limitations he has sustained to his finger or of any permanency of any of the injuries claimed. At the trial of this action, the Court viewed Claimant's fifth digit on his right hand and observed a slight scar on the tip of the finger. The Court notes that this scar was barely perceptible. Based on the foregoing, the Court awards the sum of $200.00 for all damages resulting from the injury sustained on May 7, 2007. Because Claimant's proportionate share of liability was 50%, the damage award in Claimant's favor is $100.00.
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter a judgment to this effect. To the extent that Claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2). Any motions not previously ruled upon are hereby denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
September 26, 2011
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims