 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Starks v. Toledo Correctional Institution11/5/2004
2:10 AM, throwing batterys, soap, toilet paper rolls set on fire at the dorm Officers. The Officers then ran from the dorm, most of the objects that were thrown at the Officers landed in my and Stark's sleeping area. I disobayed a direct order and got off of the TOP BUNK and got down on the floor under the bottom bunk to protect myself. My bunkie (Starks) ran out of the dorm to the Officer station to get out of the line of fire and to request protection. The Officers gave Inmate Starks A direct order to return to his bed. He did so and was then struck in the mouth with a bar of soap. I have been at Toledo Correctional Camp for two (2) Years and each year there has been rioting."
{ } Lorenzo Morns made these notations:
{ } "New Years Eve of 2003, I was an inmate housed at Toledo Correctional Camp. That morning inmates began throwing objects at the dorm Officers. Officer Quinn was hit in the head with a battery and injuried. Inmates whos bed were at the exit and entrey of the dorm were injuryed because they were made to remain in a dangerous area. This act of rioting has occurred for several years on Jan first and nothing has been done to provent it."
{ } Gary A. Carr, Jr. noted the following recollection:
{ } "That on News Years Eve of 2001-2002-2003 and 2004 I was a inmate housed at the Toledo Correctional Camp. The four (4) years I have been present at Toledo Correctional Camp, there has been a riot in the dorm. On New Years 2003 a female Correctional Officer was hit in the head with a battery and injuryed. No steps have been taken to provent this from happing again. The rioting happens every year and staff and inmate are injuryed. It should also be noted that each side of the dorm has two (2) camers."
{ } In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that defendant's breach proximately caused his injuries. Strother v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 282, 285. Ohio law imposes a duty of reasonable care upon the state to provide for its prisoner's health, care, and well-being. Clemets v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App. 3d 132, 136. However, the state is not an insurer of inmate safety. See Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 699. The duty owed by defendant to prisoners includes a duty to protect prisoners from unreasonable risk of harm. See McCoy v. Engle (1987), 42 Ohio App. 3d 204 and Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 130 Ohio App. 3d 742.
{ } In the instant claim, ToCI personnel were presented with a known dangerous situation which started on New Years Eve 2003. Evidence has shown similar dangerous situations involving inmate disturbances had occurred on several prior years on New Years Eve. After being on notice of these prior disturbances defendant did not heighten security or take other measures to quell disruptive activity likely to occur in the early morning hours of January 1, 2004. When disorder began at ToCI shortly after midnight on January 1, 2004, plaintiff asked to be removed from the disruptive situation. However, plaintiff's request was refused and he was ordered to return to an area where the risk of injury was enhanced. By this act, the court concludes, defendant breached its duty of care to protect plaintiff from a known unreasonable risk of harm. This breach of duty proximately caused the injury to plaintiff's lip. Consequently, defendant is liable to plaintiff for the injury he suffered.
{ } Plaintiff has asserted he sustained damages in the amount of $2,500.00, which includes claims based on pain and suffering, anguish over a facial disfigurement, a cl
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.
|
|