Tobar v. US
| Decision Date | 21 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. CV208-057. |
| Citation | 696 F. Supp.2d 1373 |
| Parties | Monica Rico TOBAR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Ashleigh Ruth Madison, Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, PC, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff.
James L. Coursey, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Savannah, GA, Kenneth D. Crowder, U.S. Attorney's Office, Augusta, GA, for Defendant.
On September 14, 2009, the Court conducted a liability phase bench trial. After hearing the testimony of ten witnesses and considering the evidence tendered, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Overview
Ms. Tobar slipped and fell in the lobby restroom of the Federal jail where her son was incarcerated. She claims the government is responsible for the fall and her resulting injuries.
Ms. Tobar is, by all accounts, a pleasant and humble person who sustained injuries in the fall. However, the lawsuit must end in favor of the Defendant. This is so because the great weight of the evidence shows that the government conformed to the standard of care required when visitors enter the premises, even if those visitors could be classified as invitees.
The Court makes the following findings of fact:
The Plaintiff:
(1)
Monica Tobar lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Her son is incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institute in Jesup, Georgia (FCI Jesup).
(2)
Tobar was severely injured in an automobile accident in 1984 that also killed her husband. As a result of the car crash, Tobar was in a coma for weeks, cracked her skull, lost fragments of her skull, fractured her knee, fractured her femur, suffers from a diminished sense of smell, and experiences problems with the optic nerve in one eye. She does not drive, does not have a driver's license, walks with a cane, and wears a custom built-up tennis shoe on one foot because one leg is 2¾ inches shorter than the other.
(3)
The year after her catastrophic car accident, Ms. Tobar fell and injured her leg during a Shrine Convention. Ms. Tobar is on full Social Security disability.
The Visit:
(4)
Ms. Tobar visits her son, Lawrence, on a monthly basis. She must have someone drive her, and typically that someone is her sister, Manuela Rico, who, as Lawrence's aunt, also visits him in jail.
(5)
On March 26, 2007, Tobar and Rico arrived at FCI Jesup for visitation between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. They entered the lobby where they filled out paperwork. Federal Bureau of Prisons Senior Officer Specialist Marcus Scott is the only government employee stationed in the lobby area.
(6)
It is Marcus Scott's duty to ensure that only authorized staff and visitors enter and (more importantly) exit the federal prison.
(7)
Visitation hours are from 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. However, visitors cannot enter after 2:30 p.m. Visitors are escorted through a security checkpoint, out of the reception lobby, and into the prison visiting area where they are reunited with the inmate they are approved to see.
(8)
Jeffrey Coughlin, an Administrator at FCI-Jesup, testified that visitation is encouraged by the Bureau of Prisons. Visitation helps inmates maintain community and family ties that can help them upon reentry into the community. Visitation also helps the staff keep the inmates orderly and well-behaved. It is a privilege that can be withdrawn for bad behavior and restored for good behavior.
(9)
On March 26, 2007, Tobar wore shorts. Visitors must wear long pants in order to see an inmate. Officer Scott told Tobar that she could change clothes if she so desired. Tobar did not bring a pair of pants. She did not think she and her sister could leave, drive to a store, buy pants, and get back to the lobby area before 2:30. Therefore, Manuela Rico completed the visit while the shorts-clad Tobar waited in the car in the prison parking lot.
(10)
No one ever told Tobar she could not remain on the premises while she waited for her sister to complete the visit with Lawrence. She understood that for security reasons, she should not wait in the lobby. Therefore she moved to the parking lot.
The Fall:
(11)
While waiting in the car for Manuela Rico to complete her visit with Lawrence, Tobar decided to leave the car and walk back into the lobby to use the restroom.
(12)
At approximately 2:55, just before visitation ended, Ms. Tobar reached the lobby and asked Scott if she could use the restroom. He replied something to the effect of "of course."
(13)
Tobar was entering the restroom close to the time Rico was exiting the visitation area to enter the lobby.
(14)
Tobar describes the lighting of the restroom on that day as "semi-lit". Tobar testified that she maintains a heightened awareness of conditions that might cause her to fall. She was concerned about what she testified was poor lighting, but she opted to venture ahead because she opined that perhaps there might be repercussions to her son if she mentioned the lighting.
(15)
Tobar testified that as she turned to seat herself on the toilet, she slipped and fell. Her shorts and undergarments were at mid-thigh level. Tobar testified that she saw liquid on the floor below the toilet.1 Tobar testified that the liquid was clear to yellowish in color and 1½-2 cups in amount.
(16)
Tobar screamed. Her sister, who was just exiting, entered the restroom. She testified that she saw liquid around her sister and that Rico "didn't know if she (Tobar) had gone to the bathroom, you know, in that moment or what type of liquid it was." Rico testified that she kept others from entering for a while out of an initial concern for her sister's privacy. During the time others were blocked from entering, Rico placed paper towels around the liquid surrounding her sister. Rico, too, testified that the lighting was dim.
(17)
Tobar was eventually transported to the hospital where she was admitted for injuries to her leg.
(18)
On March 26, 2007, just after the fall, William Murtha, a plumbing foreman at FCI Jesup, performed a full inspection of the restroom. He found no leaks or plumbing problems.
(19)
Multiple witnesses, including Rodney Hollis, William Murtha, Bolaji Aremu, and Lori Harris, testified during the trial that they entered the restroom on the day of the fall and did not find any problems with the lighting. Tobar and Rico were the only witnesses who characterized the restroom light as dim.
The Restroom:
(20)
At the time of Tobar's fall, there was a men's restroom and a women's restroom in the lobby reception area. There were additional restrooms beyond the security portal in the actual visitation room.
(21)
The women's restroom in the lobby reception area had a tile floor. It contained a wall-mounted toilet, sink, mirror, overhead light, and a second light mounted over the mirror. The door would close but, given the nature of the setting, was designed to not lock.
(22)
The restroom was not within Officer Scott's line of sight. A solid wall obscured his view of the restroom door.
(23)
During Officer Scott's service, he had never heard any complaints about the maintenance or condition of the women's restroom.
(24)
Inmate orderly Rodney Hollis had responsibility to check and clean the restroom three times a day, seven days a week.
(25)
For the first daily cleaning, Hollis would leave his quarters at 8:00 and arrive at the restroom area at 8:15 to 8:20. He would damp mop the floor, clean the toilet, clean the sink and remove the trash. He would check for leaks and was required to report any leaks he discovered.
(26)
For the second daily cleaning, he would leave his quarters around noon and arrive at the restroom area around 12:15 to 12:20. He would damp mop the floor and repeat the other cleaning and inspection procedures employed during the morning cleaning.
(27)
For the third daily cleaning, he would leave his quarters around 4:00 p.m. and arrive at the restroom area around 4:15 to 4:20. He would repeat the morning and noon ritual except that he would actually wet his mop and wet mop the bathroom floor for the end of day cleaning and inspection.
(28)
In addition to the thrice daily cleaning and inspection, FCI-Jesup has a Safety Manager, Shawn Stanley, who conducts monthly safety inspections of every room in the facility to look for safety hazards, including water or leakage hazards.
(29)
No inspection had ever uncovered any water leakage or lighting problem in the lobby restroom from 2006-2008.
(30)
On the day of the fall, Hollis cleaned and inspected the restroom as usual that morning. He found no problems or hazards.
(31)
On the day of the fall, Hollis cleaned the restroom as usual at noontime. He arrived at 12:15 to 12:20. He found the restroom floor was dry and the lights were working well. He checked for leaks and found none. He cleaned the sink and damp mopped the floor.
(32)
Hollis remained in the lobby area until approximately 1:00 p.m. of March 26, 2007.
(33)
Officer Scott testified—convincingly and without direct contradiction—that the average number of visitors who use the women's restroom located in the lobby is ten to fifteen people per day.
(34)
Tobar had used the lobby restroom each time she visited her son.
The Court makes the following conclusions of law:
Summary:
(1)
As explained below, under the peculiar facts of this case, it is a close question whether Tobar was an invitee or a licensee at the time of her fall.
(2)
However, the credible and quite ample evidence adduced at trial showed so clearly that the Defendant fulfilled its duty and complied with the requisite standard of care owed to visitors such that the government cannot be held liable, even if Tobar is classified as an invitee. That is, the government conformed to the higher standard of care owed to invitees. Even if Tobar is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Eichholz.
...the issue, the majority have concluded that a prison inmate's visitor is an invitee of the prison. See, e.g., Tobar v. United States, 696 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1379 (S.D.Ga.2009) (because visitation indirectly benefits prison officials, inmate's visitor is an invitee); Levy v. State of Illinois, ......
-
Robles v. Quiktrip Corp.
...whether the purported invitee's presence is of 'mutual benefit' to the purported invitee and the landowner." Tobar v. United States, 696 F. Supp.2d 1373, 1378 (S.D. Ga. 2009) (quoting Moore-Sapp Inv'rs v. Richards, 522 S.E.2d 739 (1999)). A person's status on property can change. See Card v......
-
Laroche v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...is whether the purported invitee's presence is of 'mutual benefit' to the purported invitee and the landowner." Tobar v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1378 (S.D. Ga. 2009). Here, Mrs. LaRoche was not an invitee. Defendant did not induce her to cross its track, and there was no mutual......