[Cite as Minter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2009-Ohio-7023.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

FRANK A. MINTER, JR. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2008-09384 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Steven A. Larson 

DECISION

{¶ 1} This case is sua sponte assigned to Judge Joseph T. Clark to conduct all 

proceedings necessary for decision in this matter. 

{¶ 2} On August 25, 2009, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). On August 28, 2009, plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary 

judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(A). On September 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a response to 

defendant’s motion, and on September 14, 2009, defendant filed a response to 

plaintiff’s motion. On October 22, 2009, an oral hearing was held on the motions. 

{¶ 3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: 

{¶ 4} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of 

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as 
stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from 

the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party 

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to 

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.” See also 

Gilbert v. Summit County, 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. 

{¶ 5} At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of 

defendant at the Lorain Correctional Institution (LorCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. It is 

undisputed that on September 5, 2006, plaintiff was attempting to climb into the upper 

bunk in his cell by placing his foot on the frame of the lower bunk when a weld on the 

frame broke and he fell to the ground and was injured. Plaintiff alleges that defendant 

knew or should have known that the bunk presented a hazard in light of previous “work 

orders” issued for other beds at LorCI. Plaintiff asserts that the doctrine of res ipsa 

loquitur applies to this case. 

{¶ 6} Defendant argues that it did not have notice of a problem with the lower 

bunk in plaintiff’s cell and that it was not foreseeable that a weld would break while 

plaintiff was attempting to climb into the upper bunk. 

{¶ 7} In order for plaintiff to prevail upon his claim of negligence, he must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached 

that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Strother v. Hutchinson

(1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282; Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio 

St.3d 75, 77. Defendant owed plaintiff the common law duty of reasonable care. 

Justice v. Rose (1957), 102 Ohio App. 482. Reasonable care is that which would be 

utilized by an ordinarily prudent person under similar circumstances. Murphy v. Ohio 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-132, 2002-Ohio-5170, ¶13. A duty 

arises when a risk is reasonably foreseeable. Menifee, supra, at 75. 

{¶ 8} While the court is cognizant of a “special relationship” between an inmate 

and his custodian, no higher standard of care is derived from the relationship. Clemets 

v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 132. The state is not an insurer of the safety of its 

prisoners; however, once it becomes aware of a dangerous condition in the prison, it is 
required to take the degree of reasonable care necessary to protect the prisoner from 

harm. Id. Moreover, plaintiff bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that defendant 

had notice, either actual or constructive, of a hazard. Williams v. Ohio Dept. of 

Rehab.& Corr. (1991), 61 Ohio Misc.2d 699, 702-703. The distinction between actual 

and constructive notice is in the manner in which notice is obtained rather than in the 

amount of information obtained. Whenever the trier of fact is entitled to find from 

competent evidence that information was personally communicated to or received by 

the party, the notice is actual. Constructive notice is that notice which the law regards 

as sufficient to give notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice. In re Estate 

of Fahle (1950), 90 Ohio App. 195, 197-198. 

{¶ 9} The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits plaintiff 

to prove negligence circumstantially upon showing that: 1) the instrumentality that 

caused the harm was in the exclusive control of defendant; and 2) the event that caused 

the harm was not of the type that would normally occur in the absence of negligence. 

Wiley v. Gibson (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 463. 

{¶ 10} In support of his motion, plaintiff provided his own affidavit and a copy of a 

“work order” log1 from July 13, 2006, to September 11, 2006, which shows that 14 “work 

orders” were placed for “bed repairs” in LorCI; however, none of them were for plaintiff’s 

cell. Plaintiff argues that the work orders put defendant on notice that there was a 

problem with the bunks at LorCI. At the hearing, defendant argued that there are more 

than 1,600 bunks at LorCI and that 14 non-specific work orders for bunks over a roughly 

two-month period does not constitute notice that there was a problem with the bunks in 

plaintiff’s cell. 

{¶ 11} In support of its motion, defendant provided the affidavit of Ronald 

Armbruster, the Inspector of Institutional Services at LorCI. Armbruster states that all of 

the bunks at LorCI were installed new in 1998; that plaintiff never filed any complaint 

regarding the condition of the bunks in his cell; and that records of quarterly and weekly 

inspections of plaintiff’s cell did not reveal any defect. 

{¶ 12} With regard to plaintiff’s argument that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur 

should apply to this case, the court finds that the doctrine is inapplicable because the 

 1

Defendant did not dispute the authenticity of the log. 
bunk in question was not in the “exclusive control of defendant” inasmuch as plaintiff 

and his cellmate both had access to it and used it on a daily basis. 

{¶ 13} Furthermore, the court finds that defendant did not have actual notice of a 

potential hazard presented by the lower bunk in plaintiff’s cell. The court also finds that 

the small number of general “bed repairs” that was ordered at LorCI in the months prior 

to the incident is not sufficient to give rise to constructive notice that the lower bunk in 

plaintiff’s cell would fail. The court finds that the risk presented by such lower bunk was 

not “reasonably foreseeable” and thus defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect 

him from that risk. Accordingly, judgment shall be rendered in favor of defendant. 

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

FRANK A. MINTER, JR. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2008-09384 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Steven A. Larson 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

 An oral hearing was conducted in this case upon the parties’ motions for 

summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently 
herewith, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court 

costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Kristin S. Boggs 

William C. Becker 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Terry R. Jennrich 

1370 Ontario Street, #1220 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

MR/cmd

Filed November 17, 2009 

To S.C. reporter December 29, 2009