Opinion
# 2015-018-609 Claim No. 112587
02-11-2015
EUGENE TAYLOR v. STATE OF NEW YORK
EUGENE TAYLOR Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant failed to prove the State's negligence and the claim must be dismissed.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-018-609 |
| Claimant(s): | EUGENE TAYLOR |
| Claimant short name: | TAYLOR |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 112587 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | EUGENE TAYLOR Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 11, 2015 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant seeks damages for personal injuries he suffered on March 7, 2006, when the cable on a "lat" machine in the weight room at Watertown Correctional Facility (Watertown) snapped, causing the metal bar to hit Claimant in the head. The claim alleges that the screws and bolts came out of the machine, and that Defendant knew or should have known of the defective condition because it existed for three months prior to his injury. Defendant interposed three affirmative defenses in its answer: qualified privilege or sovereign immunity, culpable conduct of Claimant or a third party, and assumption of the risk.
At trial, Claimant testified that he went to the weight room at Watertown on March 7, 2006, for the first time and used the "lat" machine. When he lifted the weights, the cable failed, causing the metal bar to hit Claimant in the head. Other inmates reported the incident to the correction officers and Claimant was taken to the infirmary for stitches. He testified he suffered migraine headaches and blurred vision for approximately eight months thereafter. Claimant did not see anyone else use the "lat" machines before him the day he was injured. In his experience, the Recreation Department of the facility usually checks the machines and, he states, if they had done so this time, they would have found the defect before his injury.
In its defense, the State called Timothy Charles Phillips, Recreation Program Leader 2, as the supervisor of the Recreation Department at Watertown, for over 29 years. Mr. Phillips is responsible for running the recreation programs and is in charge of the weight room, gym, and recreation areas at the facility. Also, he is responsible for checking all the weight equipment to make sure it is safe for use. Mr. Phillips described the "lat" machines as having cables hooked to weights with a bolt and a bar that moves the weights via a pulley system. He also testified that the machines are inspected two- to- three times per day, after every recreation session ends. If there is a defect, the equipment is either repaired or the machine dismantled. The findings and actions are entered into the logbook.
On March 6 and 7, 2006, Mr. Phillips checked the equipment in the weight room and counted the weights. He noted his inspections on each day in the logbook. On both days, the logbook (Exhibit A) reflects Mr. Phillips noted twice during that day that the equipment was okay. Mr. Phillips heard about Claimant's injury on March 8, 2006, because Claimant was injured after 8:00 p.m. on March 7, after the recreation staff had left. On March 8, 2006, Mr. Phillips' assistant checked the machine and found a bolt had come out. Mr. Phillips had no explanation for how the bolt came loose.
The trial was conducted via video-conferencing, the transcript reflects Exhibit A was a logbook signed by Tim Phillips relating to the weight equipment. When the exhibit was received from the Assistant Attorney General, it included three pages of a logbook with regular time referenced inmate counts and general information and occurrences (including Claimant's injury). Since it is not clear that Mr. Phillips entered any information on those three sheets, nor provided any other foundation for their admission, and given that it is unclear if Claimant was provided an opportunity to review those pages when he agreed to the admission of Exhibit A, the Court will not consider them. The Exhibit the Court received as "A," only consists of the three pages signed by "Tim" and "Curt" evidencing matters related to the gym, including inspections for 3/4/2006 - 3/10/2006.
Defendant also called Curtis Fletcher, Mr. Phillip's assistant, to testify. Mr. Fletcher has also been employed at Watertown Correctional Facility for 29 years and is the Recreation Program Leader 1, and also performs inspections of weight equipment in the weight room for safety issues. Mr. Fletcher signed in on the logbook on March 8, 2006, and noted that the bolt holding the cable on the "lat" machine was unscrewed. He testified that he had not noticed any problem with the "lat" machine on the days before March 8, 2006. That morning he repaired the "lat" machine and then noted in the log that the equipment was okay. He testified that the bolt was not broken or stripped, it was unscrewed. He also testified that the equipment is checked two- to- three times per day. He added that the "lat" machine had been at the facility for 10 - 15 years, and there were no problems with the equipment other than general maintenance.
Claimant had no questions for these witnesses.
The State, as a landowner, has a duty to maintain its property, including its prison facilities in a reasonably safe condition (Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997 [1983]; Rosado v State of New York, 139 AD2d 851 [3d Dept 1988]). This duty extends to its fitness equipment (see Abrams v Powerhouse Gym Merrick, 284 AD2d 487 [2d Dept 2001]; Gregaydis v Watervliet Civic Chest, 14 AD2d 623 [3d Dept 1961]). It is Claimant's burden in a case alleging an injury caused by defective equipment to show that the State either created the defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have corrected it (Abrams v Powerhouse Gym Merrick, 284 AD2d at 488; Tripoli v State of New York, 72 AD2d 823 [3d Dept 1979]). The State is not an insurer, however, and negligence cannot be inferred (Killeen v State of New York, 66 NY2d 850; Davis v State of New York, 133 AD2d 982 [3d Dept 1987]; Mochen v State of New York, 57 AD2d 719 [4th Dept 1977]).
There is no dispute that Claimant was injured when the metal bar on the "lat" machine hit him in the head because the screw holding it to the machine became unscrewed. However, there was no proof that Defendant had actual prior notice of this defect. The only issue is whether Defendant should have known that this screw would become unscrewed before Claimant was injured.
To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to permit discovery (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). Claimant has not established that there was constructive notice of this problem with the "lat" machine.
Defendant established that regular inspections of the weight equipment were done, at least twice per day. Mr. Fletcher testified that he could recall no problem with this machine before this incident requiring repairs, other than general maintenance. There was no proof this screw had come loose before, and the screw did not break and was not stripped. The witnesses also indicated that the screw was not easily removed from the machine.
Claimant has failed to establish that Defendant breached its duty, because the proof does not establish that Defendant knew or should have known of this defective condition before Claimant was injured.
All motions not previously decided are DENIED.
Accordingly, Claimant has failed to prove the State's negligence and the claim must be DISMISSED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
February 11, 2015
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims