Fondern v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction
Decision Date | 03 February 1977 |
Citation | 367 N.E.2d 901,5 O.O.3d 325,51 Ohio App.2d 180 |
Parties | , 5 O.O.3d 325 FONDERN, Appellee-Appellant, v. DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Appellant-Appellee. (Two cases.) |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
An inmate of a penal institution is not an employee of the state of Ohio for purposes of applying R.C. Chapter 4113 in an action brought by the inmate for injuries received while performing work within the institution.
Nelson Lancione, Columbus, for Charles Fondern.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Gene W. Holliker, Columbus, for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction of Ohio.
These matters involve the appeal of a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded the plaintiff the sum of $1,800 as compensation for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, an inmate of the Columbus Correctional Medical Center, who had at the time of the injury been operating a steam clothes press in the laundry room of that institution.
The facts show that the plaintiff on the date in question was operating the press that was controlled by two buttons which, under normal operating conditions, would have to be depressed simultaneously with both hands in order to bring the top or head of the press in contact with the lower portion of the press.
The facts show that the dual-button system is installed on these machines for safety purposes. Also, the facts show that this particular press at the time of the incident had the left button jammed or plugged with a match cover, in order that the head might be depressed by pressing only the right button.
The facts show that other presses in the laundry also had one of their buttons plugged for one-button operation. It also appears that such had been a rather common practice within this institution. There was evidence that the prison authorities were aware that the inmates plugged the operating controls, but there was also evidence that such practice was prohibited and that an inmate who was found to have so plugged an operating button would be "ticketed" or given a citation for an infraction of the institution rules. There is no direct testimony that plaintiff had either been "ticketed" specifically or warned of such a violation.
The facts also show that the particular machine upon which the plaintiff had been assigned for his work had operational problems in that the head came down more abruptly and with more force than it should normally function. The record shows that the plaintiff had informed the institutional authorities of the malfunction of this press, and that it had been worked on prior to and after the injury by one of the inmates assigned to repair such equipment. However, the evidence shows that the irregular performance of the machine had continued up to the time of this accident.
The plaintiff testified that he had not depressed the operating button, that he was in the process of smoothing out a shirt, and that the head had come down independently of any action on his part to activate the head. Another inmate working next to plaintiff testified that he had not seen the plaintiff depress the activator button, and that he had observed the press head operating in the aforestated manner.
A Mr. Sharp, a dealer and professional in the repair of laundry equipment, including these types of Prosperity Body Presses, testified that in his 25 years of experience he had neither seen nor been aware of a press head coming down without both control buttons being depressed. Mr. Sharp further testified that subsequent to the incident he had checked the particular press and found that it was working properly.
Further, Mr. Sharp testified that the heads of these presses may at times operate downward, hitting the buck too hard as had the press here, but that there was an adjustment for this problem and that such problem would not have been related to the lowering of the head without the release buttons having been pressed.
The trial court found that the standard of care applicable from the state to an inmate working at a job within a penal institution would be that prescribed by R.C. 4113.03 to 4113.07, the sections of law setting forth the standard of care established for freedom of choice employees.
Such sections provide, among other features, that when an employee shows that he received a personal injury by way of any defect or unsafe condition at his place of employment, the employer is deemed to have had knowledge of such defect or condition, and the defect is prima-facie evidence of neglect on the part of the employer. The employer, however, may, under such sections, show by way of a defense that such defect was not discoverable in the exercise of ordinary care. Additionally, such sections provide that the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are not available to the employer in an action brought by the employee where it is claimed that the injury was occasioned by any defect or unsafe condition of the place of employment.
The trial court, among other points, found that the press had been "malfunctioning for a week, prior thereto, and that defendant negligently directed an unqualified inmate to repair the cause thereof."
An additional finding of fact of the trial court was as follows:
" * * * (N)o instructions were given plaintiff prior to this work assignment; no safety rules were given or posted regarding the machine; and defendants had notice of the modification of operation by persons assigned to said presses, impliedly consenting and ratifying such method of operation."
As conclusions of law, the trial court, in addition to the application of the code sections mentioned, found:
The state appeals, setting forth the following assignments of error:
The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schnetz v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 10AP–959.
...of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk, if applicable, in a given case.” Fondern v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1977), 51 Ohio App.2d 180, 184, 5 O.O.3d 325, 367 N.E.2d 901. A prison “ ‘may confront [a negligence] claimant with the ordinary common law defenses—contributory ......
-
McCoy v. Engle
...there was and is a common-law duty of due care owed by the state to its prisoners. Fondern v. Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction (1977), 51 Ohio App.2d 180, 183, 5 O.O.3d 325, 327, 367 N.E.2d 901, 903; see, also, Jenkins v. Krieger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 314, 319, 21 O.O.3d 198, 201, 423 N......
-
Bozarth v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
...Caudy to come and assist him, at which time the door fell and injured plaintiff's arm. {¶9} In Fondern v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1977), 51 Ohio App. 2d 180, 5 O.O. 3d 325, 367 N.E. 2d 901, the court held that an inmate working in a correctional institution is not an employee of the state ......
-
Barnett v. Ohio Dep't Of Rehab.
...COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN APPLYING AND INTERPRETING THE LAW IN MCCOY V. ENGLE (1987), 42 OHIO APP.3D 204, AND IN FONDERN V. DEPT. OF REHAB. & CORR. (1977), 51 OHIO APP.2D 180, IN BOTH CASES, AS TO THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR PRISON WORKERS, AND THE STATE SAFETY LAWS ARE NOW REQUIRED TO BE ......