Opinion
# 2011-041-513 Claim No. 116251
12-07-2011
ENEA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claim alleging that defendant failed to provide inmate participating in vocational program with safe equipment and safe workplace, failed to adequately instruct him in the safe operation of table saw and inadequately supervised him in the use of the table saw is dismissed after trial where evidence showed that claimant was adequately trained and supervised, table saw was not defective or otherwise unsafe, claimant operated the table saw without its blade guard in place and defendant lacked sufficient time to discover and stop claimant's unsafe use of the table saw. Case information
UID: 2011-041-513 Claimant(s): SALVATORE ENEA Claimant short name: ENEA Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 116251 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANK P. MILANO SIVIN & MILLER, LLP Claimant's attorney: By: Glenn D. Miller, Esq. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: December 7, 2011 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant Salvatore Enea, while incarcerated as a state prison inmate at Adirondack Correctional Facility (Adirondack), was injured on January 9, 2007, at approximately 8:10 a.m. when several fingers of his left hand were severely lacerated by a table saw blade as he participated in a vocational education cabinetmaking/woodworking class at that facility. Claimant alleges that defendant failed to provide him with safe equipment and a safe workplace, that defendant failed to adequately instruct him in the safe operation of the table saw and that defendant inadequately supervised him in the use of the table saw.
The State of New York's correctional authorities are under a duty to provide reasonably safe equipment and training to inmates participating in facility work programs (Havens v County of Saratoga, 50 AD3d 1223, 1224 [3d Dept 2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 846 [2008]; see Bernard v State of New York, 34 AD3d 1065, 1067 [3d Dept 2006]; Spiratos v County of Chenango, 28 AD3d 863, 864 [3d Dept 2006]; Manganaro v State of New York, 24 AD3d 1003, 1004 [3d Dept 2005]; Muhammad v State of New York, 15 AD3d 807, 808 [3d Dept 2005]).
However, defendant "is not an insurer of inmate safety, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the happening of an incident" (Muhammad, 15 AD3d at 808 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Additionally, "an inmate is required to exercise ordinary care" for his own safety (Muhammad, 15 AD3d at 808). If the inmate fails to exercise ordinary care "and pursues a dangerous course of conduct, he or she is required to take some responsibility for his or her own negligence" (Martinez v State of New York, 225 AD2d 877, 878 [3d Dept 1996]).
The claim alleges, inter alia, that defendant failed "to provide claimant with reasonably safe machinery and equipment [and] to provide claimant with a reasonably safe workplace . . ." While the trial evidence strongly suggests, and the Court will hereafter find, that claimant was injured while operating the table saw without its blade guard in place, that aspect of the case will be considered by the Court within the context of deciding whether defendant, as alleged by claimant, inadequately supervised claimant in his use of the table saw. Beyond that component of the case, no evidence was received to suggest, let alone prove, that the table saw upon which claimant was injured was in any manner defective or otherwise unsafe.
Although there was conflicting testimony about whether safety rules for various machines were posted around the workshop on the morning of the accident, even conceding their absence for the sake of argument, there was no testimony at all, including expert testimony, that the presence of posted safety rules created a safe workshop or that their absence created an unsafe workshop. The germane question on this point is whether claimant had been properly instructed in the safe operation of the table saw. For reasons immediately hereafter discussed, the Court finds that he was.
The claim alleges that defendant failed to provide claimant " adequate instructions, warnings . . . in connection with his use of the table saw . . ." The claimant failed to prove this allegation. On the contrary, the trial record well establishes that claimant had been properly instructed in the use of the table saw, had been properly warned of its dangers and that he had demonstrated to defendant sufficient proficiency to operate it.
Claimant was 42 years old at the time of the accident and was first incarcerated at Adirondack in late 2003. While incarcerated at Adirondack claimant pursued a vocational education program in cabinetmaking/woodworking. After approximately 15 months of training, claimant, in March 2005, was awarded certification in three occupational titles: furniture finisher, carpenter helper and mill worker. In order to obtain those certifications, claimant had to demonstrate proficiency in the safe use of the table saw, among other machines and tools.
Claimant's initial vocational instructor, Mr. Seymour, trained and supervised claimant on the safe use of each machine in the woodworking shop during the training period and specifically instructed claimant with respect to the table saw that, among other safe practices, "[T]he guard has to be on the machine, don't raise the blade too high past the height of the wood [and] make sure you use push sticks" (Trial Exhibit X, pp 69-70).
At trial, claimant recalled that Mr. Seymour had taught him that he should always make sure that the blade guard was on when he used the table saw. Claimant also testified that he had never taken off the blade guard in Mr. Seymour's class and that he had been instructed never to remove any of the guards on any of the machines. Claimant also specifically recalled written work rules posted by Mr. Seymour, including rule number one which stated: "Never remove the blade guard" (Trial Transcript, pp 100-101).
After receiving his vocational training certification at Adirondack, claimant was transferred to Gowanda Correctional Facility (Gowanda) for approximately 13 months. While at Gowanda, claimant received no additional training or experience in cabinetmaking/woodworking.
Claimant returned to Adirondack in late 2006 and again enrolled in the cabinetmaking/woodworking program. Mr. Seymour had retired and the new vocational instructor was Mr. Nathan Montanye. Claimant began attending class with Mr. Montanye and fellow inmates about one week prior to the accident. According to claimant, neither he nor any of the other inmates did any work or used any tools or machines prior to the day of claimant's accident because the shop was still being arranged after it had been moved from another building. Claimant testified that Mr. Montanye provided him no training or instruction prior to the day of the accident.
Claimant did however acknowledge that on January 4, 2007, five days prior to his accident, he reviewed and signed a document entitled "Machine Safety Rules Cabinetmaking Class" (Trial Exhibit 6), which included the following rule, among others: "Use all blade covers, guides, safety covers." Mr. Montanye also signed the "Machine Safety Rules Cabinetmaking Class" document. Further, claimant testified that he understood all the rules contained in the "Machine Safety Rules Cabinetmaking Class" document (Trial Transcript, p 123).
In addition to the foregoing, the following facts further demonstrate that defendant provided claimant with appropriate instruction in the operation of the table saw, provided claimant appropriate guidance and safety instruction in the safe operation of the table saw and appropriately confirmed claimant's proficiency in table saw operation sufficient to permit him to operate it:
1. Even though claimant, while at Gowanda, had his woodworking experience interrupted for 13 months, on the morning of the accident claimant had no questions or concerns about operating or setting up the table saw (Trial Transcript, p 134), nor had he forgotten the operational or safety rules of the workshop machinery (Trial Transcript, p 140);
2. Mr. Montanye confirmed claimant's proficiency in woodworking and table saw use by reviewing claimant's employability profile and by reviewing previously reported evaluations of claimant's abilities (Trial Transcript, pp 224-226, referencing Trial Exhibits 3 and 4); and,
3. Prior to allowing claimant to independently operate the table saw, Mr. Montanye reviewed general workshop safety rules with claimant, reviewed table saw safety rules and operational techniques with him, observed and monitored claimant manipulate and operate the table saw and ensured that claimant had no questions about safe table saw use or operation (Trial Transcript, pp 226-229, referencing Trial Exhibits 6 and 7).
Finally, the claim alleges that defendant failed to adequately supervise claimant "in connection with his use of the table saw . . ." By reason of the foregoing discussion, the Court has determined that prior to January 9, 2007, defendant had appropriately, and non-negligently, instructed claimant in the safe operation of the table saw, and further, that defendant had appropriately, and non-negligently, ensured claimant was of sufficient proficiency to independently operate it. The critical remaining question therefore is whether the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the defendant was negligent in supervising his use of the table saw on the morning of January 9, 2007.
Claimant badly lacerated his fingers on the morning of January 9, 2007 while utilizing the table saw to cut component parts to assemble a number of small wooden pencil boxes. Claimant testified that the woodworking class would start between 7:50 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. each day (Exhibit X, pp 22, 24). He told Mr. Montanye of his plans and obtained goggles, a hammer, nails and glue from the tool cage. The boxes claimant intended to make were about six inches long and three inches wide. Claimant adjusted the saw blade and the "break bar" (also referred to as the "rip fence") and began cutting the wood to size on the table saw, using a push stick (a notched tool, usually a piece of wood, used to push the wood being cut past the saw blade) in one hand and a piece of unnotched scrap wood in the other, as he guided the wood into the saw blade. According to the "Inmate Injury Report," admitted as Defendant's Exhibit P, the accident occurred at 8:10 a.m. Claimant testified that to the best of his knowledge he was the only person, prior to his accident, to use the table saw on the morning of his accident.
At trial, claimant had limited recollection of the accident itself. He testified: "I just put the wood there with the push sticks. I started pushing, and my hand got jammed up in there and I really ain't sure how it happened because I blacked out when it happened" (Trial Transcript, pp 108-109). He was equally uncertain about the specific circumstances under which he used the table saw that morning. The following series of questions and answers are found at Trial Transcript, p 112, lines 4-18:
"Q. When you were using the table saw that day was the blade guard in its proper position?
A. To my knowledge it should be there, it should be on there.
Q. Did you later find out whether or not it was there?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever adjust the height of the blade before you started the machine that day?
A. I can't recall.
Q. Did you ever adjust the blade once you started working that day.
A. I can't recall. The only thing I do remember adjusting was the bar of the wood, for the measurement."
Robert Byno, the vocational supervisor at Adirondack on January 9, 2007, spoke to claimant in the facility infirmary immediately after the accident and testified "[claimant] had told me that he was cutting a piece of wood, he hit a knot, it got stopped, so when he pushed harder to get it through the knot, his hand slipped and hit the blade" (Trial Transcript, p 167).
Damon Bloomfield, a fellow inmate and vocational classmate of claimant's that morning, testified (Trial Transcript, pp 47-48) at trial:
"Q. Now, did you take, make any observations of the table saw before Mr. Enea's accident?
A. No.
Q. Did you make any observations of the table saw immediately after his accident?
A. Yes.
Q. And did the table saw have the blade guard on it?
A. No.
Q. Did you see the blade guard anywhere in the classroom?
A. I seen it on the floor.
Q. Where on the floor?
A. It was like right on the side of the table saw as I was approaching the table saw.
Q. Would it be to the left or to the right of the table saw from the perspective of the user?
A. It would be to the left.
Q. Did you see anyone else use that table saw that day other than Mr. Enea?
A. No."
Immediately after the accident, Mr. Bloomfield also reported to Mr. Byno that the table saw blade guard had not been on the machine (Trial Transcript, pp 50-51).
Mr. Montanye and Mr. Bloomfield provided directly contradictory testimony concerning Mr. Montanye's whereabouts and activities at the moment of claimant's accident. Misidentifying a chop saw as a radial saw in the background of photographic Exhibit 16, Mr. Bloomfield testified that at the time of the accident Mr. Montanye was leaning with his back against the "radial saw" table and watching claimant, without obstruction, from 5 or 6 feet away, as claimant worked at the table saw and injured himself. Mr. Montanye, on the other hand, testified that the machinery in the background of Exhibit 16 is, in fact, a chop saw, that the radial saw is on the opposite side of the workshop, and that he was working with another inmate at that radial saw, approximately 20 feet from where claimant was working at the table saw, at the time of claimant's accident, and that he was only alerted to claimant's accident by some shouting. Having reviewed the evidence and having further had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of both witnesses as they testified, the Court credits Mr. Montanye on this point and discredits Mr. Bloomfield. Additionally, Mr. Bloomfield unfailingly, and frequently, sought to portray Mr. Montanye, an individual with whom he had had personal conflict, in an unflattering light, and consistently sought to portray his experiences with Mr. Seymour as appropriate and safe and his experiences with Mr. Montanye as inappropriate and unsafe. Mr. Bloomfield's repeated reference, and strict adherence, to this theme, mantra-like, undermined and diminished his credibility.
Nathan Montanye became the vocational instructor at Adirondack in late September/early October of 2006. He spent his initial time at the facility establishing and arranging a new vocational workshop, moving it from one building to another, first opening it for inmate use in November. Claimant did not enter the class until the last week of December.
Mr. Montanye reported that he would typically arrive at the workshop at approximately 7:30 a.m. each day and engage in a consistent and established protocol to prepare the shop for inmates to arrive at approximately 8:00 a.m., time frames generally consistent with testimony of other witnesses, including claimant.
Given the workshop's dangerous environment and that it housed potentially dangerous and sharp instruments and tools openly available to inmates, Mr. Montanye would, prior to inmates arriving, carefully review the workshop setup each day and also inventory for such items as blades, tools, nails and metals. Included in this daily inspection was Mr. Montanye's review of the workshop for safety issues including, specifically, an examination of machinery to ensure that blade guards were in place (Trial Transcript, pp 229-231).
Upon the arrival of inmates, Mr. Montanye would count them, report his count to facility personnel, assign an inmate the job of tool clerk and open and inspect the tool room prior to the distribution of tools to inmates. In January, 2007, Mr. Montanye's vocational workshop class consisted of approximately 12 inmates.
Mr. Montanye testified that on January 9, 2007, consistent with his normal protocol, he inspected the workshop for safety and confirmed that all machine blade guards were in place (Trial Transcript, pp 234-235).
On the morning of the accident, he met with the claimant, reviewed safety rules with him, and, for a few minutes, personally observed claimant manipulate and operate the table saw, all designed, according to Mr. Montanye, to confirm claimant's familiarity with and proficiency in the operation of the table saw.
Moving on to assist other inmates in their work, Mr. Montanye was at the radial saw assisting another student when shouting alerted him to claimant's accident. After shutting off a master power switch, Mr. Montanye observed the table saw blade guard had been removed from the table saw and that the guard was lying on the floor. He testified that it was at this time that he first noticed the table saw guard had been removed from the machine. The Court found Mr. Montanye's testimony on this point credible, his account further supported, in the Court's estimation, by additionally credible, uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Montanye that in the immediate aftermath of the accident, he asked the other inmates in the class if "anybody saw the accident or saw the blade guard removed" (Trial Transcript, p 250).
Based upon the credible evidence, the Court finds that, at the outset of the vocational workshop class at Adirondack on January 9, 2007 and prior to the claimant's use of it, the table saw upon which claimant was injured was properly equipped with its blade guard. The Court finds that prior to his accident, claimant was the only workshop student that day to operate the table saw upon which he was injured, that he was familiar with and proficient in its operation and that he knew of and appreciated the safety rules required to operate it. The Court also finds that claimant was operating the table saw without its blade guard in place at the time of his accident, and finally, the Court finds that Mr. Montanye first observed that the table saw blade guard had been removed from the table saw upon responding to claimant's accident.
To the extent the claimant would have the Court conclude that if Mr. Montanye is not found to have knowingly condoned claimant's unsafe operation of the table saw (in operating it without its blade guard in place), defendant should nevertheless be found liable due to negligent, inattentive supervision of claimant on January 9, 2007, the Court is unpersuaded.
While the "Inmate Injury Report" (Exhibit P) indicates claimant's accident occurred at 8:10 a.m., within minutes of the time workshop machinery was ordinarily made available to inmates, the specific length of time claimant was independently operating the table saw on the morning of his accident was never established. This was due in part to the imprecision and vagueness of all of the witness testimony on the point, which suggested that the length of time claimant operated the table saw ranged from but a few minutes to half an hour or more. This lack of specificity is a failure of proof in and of itself. Moreover, what is unequivocally clear is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever as to the length of time claimant operated the table saw after the blade guard had been removed, whether one minute or thirty. Accordingly, claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant, in the exercise of due diligence and appropriate workshop supervision, should have observed claimant's unsafe operation of the table saw and interceded.
Beyond failing to prove that the defendant had time sufficient to discover and discontinue claimant's unsafe use of the table saw, claimant's position would require the Court to ignore that Mr. Montanye had serious responsibilities and obligations other than to simply observe claimant for uninterrupted periods of time. Most specifically, Mr. Montanye had the responsibility to simultaneously monitor the activities of approximately twelve convicted felons working in a vocational workshop with dangerous equipment, all of whom had virtually unfettered access to dangerous machines, instruments, tools and materials, and that he had the further responsibility to also instruct and assist other students in his class.
The Court, pending post-trial objections of the parties, if any, to the introduction of Exhibits 28 and 29, reserved decision on their introduction. No objections having been raised, Exhibits 28 and 29 are admitted into evidence. All other motions not previously decided are hereby denied.
The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence any of his articulated theories of liability. Accordingly, the claim is, in all respects, dismissed.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
December 7, 2011
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims