Opinion
No. 85-01341.
Decided August 2, 1988.
Louis Rubenstein and Hal R. Arenstein, for plaintiff.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General, and Donald J. Guittar, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
This action came to trial on June 27 to 30, 1988, at which time plaintiff, Aaron W. Woody, presented his case with aid of counsel on the sole issue of liability. Based on the evidence and arguments presented at trial, the court renders the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
1. On May 17, 1984, plaintiff and Eugene Groves, inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institute, attended an upholstery class at said facility;
2. The upholstery class was taught by Harold Miller, a civilian with security training;
3. Prior to the afternoon session of the upholstery class, the plaintiff collected scrap material and tools and practiced his skills at a sewing machine;
4. Groves asked the plaintiff, at least once, whether he could use the material the plaintiff collected. The plaintiff responded in the negative;
5. Groves indicated to the plaintiff that such a response was taken as a threat;
6. The plaintiff replied to Groves that "talk is cheap";
7. Groves then disassembled a pair of shears, approached the plaintiff from behind, stabbed the plaintiff in the chest with half of the shears and stabbed him in the back with the other half of the shears;
8. When Miller discovered that the plaintiff had been stabbed, he confronted Groves about his actions;
9. Groves told Miller that the plaintiff "threatened my life";
10. Miller then removed one half of the shears from Groves' hand and took Groves away from the scene. The other half of the shears remained lodged in the plaintiff's chest;
11. On or about May 17, 1984, correction officers were not specifically assigned to guard inmates in the upholstery class, but various officers periodically walked by said class;
12. On or about May 17, 1984, a correction officer was on duty at the gate outside the vocational school building, where the upholstery class was conducted;
13. During the time Groves had participated in the upholstery class, from November 1983 to May 17, 1984, he did not exhibit unusual or violent behavior.
Conclusions of Law
Plaintiff's complaint is based upon a straight negligence theory. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances which existed on May 17, 1984. Further, plaintiff alleges defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries, pain and suffering.
In Clemets v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 132, 20 OBR 166, 485 N.E.2d 287, the Court of Appeals for Williams County held that the standard of care owed by authorities to their inmates requires the protection of a prisoner from harm and, thus, the provision for his care and safety throughout the duration of the inmate's incarceration. "The requisite standard of care is held to be that which is reasonable and ordinary for the health, care and well-being of the prisoner." Id. at 136, 20 OBR at 170, 485 N.E.2d at 292. See, also, Annotation (1977), 79 A.L.R.3d 1210, 1216.
However, the state is not an insurer of the safety of its prisoners. The defendant cannot be held liable when it does not know of, or have reason to anticipate, an unreasonable risk, or an illness or injury. Justice v. Rose (1957), 102 Ohio App. 482, 3 O.O.2d 39, 144 N.E.2d 303. Defendant is not required to guard an inmate from harm due to a sudden attack from a third person when the circumstances do not raise such an expectation. See 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 119, Section 314A, at Comments b, e and f. Thus, it must be determined whether the defendant had reason to anticipate Groves' attack on the plaintiff.
Plaintiff argues defendant should have anticipated Groves' attack based upon intake interviews conducted by defendant's employees when Groves was admitted to the Ohio Correctional System. Groves had been convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated murder, attempted murder and kidnapping. In a psychological work-up completed by D.E. Watson, M. Ed., and approved by S.C. Craddock, M.S. Psychologist, Groves was classified as a paranoid schizophrenic. Plaintiff also contends that Groves' nine rule infractions in eleven months should have alerted defendant that said inmate had a propensity for assaultive behavior.
Upon review of the evidence, the court does not agree with the plaintiff's contentions. Testimony was offered at trial to show it was reasonable to place Groves in an upholstery class despite his 1976 evaluation reports. Dr. Jaime Smith e Incas said it would be impossible to predict future psychological behavior based upon a psychiatric examination conducted upon entering a correctional institution. In addition, Groves was in the upholstery class since November 1983. At no time prior to the May 17, 1984 incident did he exhibit unusual or violent behavior. Miller described Groves' behavior in the upholstery class as "average." Miller also testified that Groves never caused trouble prior to said incident. Therefore, it is the court's opinion that Groves' actions on May 17, 1984, were not foreseeable.
The fact that Groves had rule infractions prior to May 1984 does not prove he was likely to attack the plaintiff or anyone else in the facility. Arthur Tate, Jr., Superintendent at Chillicothe Correctional Institute, testified that "because an inmate has rule infractions, this does not mean the inmate is violent. Groves did not attack others in other jobs, even though these jobs enabled him access to sharp objects." In addition, Tate said that Groves' rule infractions records are not uncommon in comparison to those of other inmates. Thus, the greater weight of the evidence shows that defendant could not anticipate Groves' attack upon plaintiff.
Plaintiff also alleges defendant exercised inadequate supervision practices in the upholstery class. This argument is without merit. Plaintiff's own expert, Joseph Rowan, testified that a guard should have been in the hallway near the vocational study area in order to respond to an emergency within four minutes. Although defendant did not have a guard assigned in the vocational school, guards rotated and periodically walked through the building. Also, a guard was on duty at the gate outside the vocational school; this guard could respond to emergencies in the vocational school within thirty seconds.
In view of the above, the court finds that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant.
Judgment for defendant.
RUSSELL LEACH, J., retired, of the Franklin County Municipal Court, sitting by assignment.