 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Starks v. Toledo Correctional Institution11/5/2004
jury to his lower lip which was treated at approximately 12:50 a.m. on January 1, 2004. According to defendant, plaintiff did not seek additional medical care after his initial treatment, although plaintiff related he received follow-up care on January 5, 2004.
{ } Defendant denied any liability for plaintiff's injury . Defendant asserted ToCI personnel responded correctly and followed standard policies when reacting to the January 1, 2004, inmate disturbance. Defendant denied having any prior knowledge that any disruptive activity was likely to occur. Defendant denied ToCI staff breached any duty of care owed to plaintiff by ordering him to return to his bunk after the disorder began. Defendant contended plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish his injury was the proximate result of any negligent act or omission on the part of ToCI employees in regard to their response to the January 1, 2004 disorder.
{ } Plaintiff related inmate riots have occurred at ToCI every New Years Eve for the past four years. Therefore, plaintiff suggested defendant should have known a riot was likely to occur on January 1, 2004. Plaintiff professed defendant did not take any measures to prevent or inhibit rioting activity on New Years Eve. Additionally, plaintiff contended ToCI staff were under a duty to protect him and provide him a safe haven from the disruption when he made requests to be allowed to leave the area. Plaintiff argued ToCI personnel were negligent in ordering him to return to his bunk and, thereby, knowingly subjecting him to the risk of injury .
{ } Plaintiff submitted a copy of a document described as page 44 of the Toledo Correctional Camp Handbook. Under the heading Introduction to the ToCI Camp is the following instruction: " e aware that the officers are here for your safety and security." Plaintiff asserted this handbook instruction constituted ToCI policy and defendant's corrections officers violated this mandated policy by ordering him to return to an unsafe unsecure area after he asked to be moved to a place of safety. Plaintiff implied the corrections officers acted negligently and violated policy when ordering him to return to an area where his risk of injury was enhanced.
{ } Plaintiff also submitted a copy of defendant's policy directive pertaining to the subject: Protection From Harm and Inappropriate Supervision. Under the heading Policy is the following language: " t is the policy of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction that no inmates will be subjected to personal abuse, corporal punishment, personal injury , disease, property damage, and harassment." Plaintiff asserted he was subjected to personal injury by ToCI personnel when he was ordered to return to his bunk in the midst of rioting inmates. Plaintiff argued defendant violated policy with this order which constituted a negligent act that proximately led to his injury. Plaintiff maintained ToCI corrections officers had a duty to protect him and refused to offer him requested protection. This refusal, plaintiff professed, constituted actionable negligence with resulting personal injury.
{ } Plaintiff filed statements from three fellow inmates, James Moton, Lorenzo Morns, and Gary A. Carr, Jr. These statements provide personal recollections of the inmate disorders occurring on January 1, 2004, and past years. James Morton provided the following narrative:
{ } "That myself and Inmate Earl Starks, Jr #206-204 were assigned too bed #101 on the west side of the dorm, At Toledo Correctional Camp. This bed is located at the exit and entry of the dorm. New Years Eve of 2004, the Inmates on the west side of the dorm started rioting at approximately 1
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|