Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-07741,95-07741
• Citation: 91 Ohio Misc.2d 195,698 N.E.2d 514
• Parties: WOODS v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION et al. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

Page 195

91 Ohio Misc.2d 195

698 N.E.2d 514

WOODS v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION et al. ^*

No. 95-07741.

Court of Claims of Ohio.

Decided Oct. 2, 1997.

Richard F. Swope, Reynoldsburg, for plaintiff.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stephanie D. Pestello-Sharf, Assistant Attorney General, Columbus, for defendants.

DEAN STRAUSBAUGH, Judge.

The court conducted a bifurcated trial to determine whether defendants, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") and the Office of Risk Management, are liable for injuries suffered by plaintiff, inmate Ronald Lee Woods, while a passenger in an ODRC van.

The incident giving rise to plaintiff's complaint occurred on Neil Avenue in Columbus on July 15, 1993, as Corrections Officer Wendell Boston was transporting plaintiff from the Ohio State University Hospital ("OSUH") to the Orient Correctional Facility ("OCI"). Neil Avenue is composed of five lanes, two northbound and two southbound, with a middle turn lane. Boston and plaintiff were traveling in a 1991 Ford van equipped with a steel barrier directly behind the driver and front passenger seats, and two parallel benches, one along each side of the van where inmates were seated during transport. The benches were not equipped with seat belts.

As Boston traveled at a speed of twenty to twenty-five m.p.h. in the middle southbound lane on Neil Avenue, a vehicle from the middle turn lane darted into his lane of travel. Boston immediately applied the brakes and steered the van into the right southbound lane. The court finds that Boston was operating the van well within the posted thirty-five m.p.h. speed limit. As a result of Boston's sudden braking and steering, plaintiff, who was seated in the rear passenger side of the van, was thrown forward, striking his head and shoulders on the steel barrier behind the driver's compartment. Boston stopped the van, at which time plaintiff positioned himself back onto the seat. When questioned by Boston, plaintiff answered that he was all right. Thereafter, Boston proceeded to OCI, where plaintiff was examined at the infirmary.

In his complaint, plaintiff contends that (1) ODRC failed to comply with R.C. 4513.263, (2) ODRC failed to reasonably care for plaintiff's safety by not equipping the rear portion of the van with restraining devices, and (3) Boston's operation of the van on the date in question violated Ohio traffic laws.

In order to prevail under a theory of negligence, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants owed him a duty, that they breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Strother v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 21 O.O.3d 177, 423 N.E.2d 467. Ohio law imposes a duty of reasonable care upon the state to provide for its prisoners' health, care, and well-being. Clemets v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 132, 136, 20 OBR 166, 169-170, 485 N.E.2d 287, 291-292. However, the state is not an insurer of inmate safety. See Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 61 Ohio Misc.2d 699, 702, 583 N.E.2d 1129, 1131-1132. Accordingly, the question before the court is whether ODRC breached its duty of reasonable care under the circumstances of this case.

R.C. 4513.263(B)(2) states that no person shall "operate an automobile on any street or highway unless each passenger in the automobile who is...