[Cite as Strong v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-1845.]

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

JIMMY STRONG 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2008-03165 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging a claim of negligence. The issues of 

liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of 

liability. 

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

defendant at Chillicothe Correctional Institution (CCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff 

testified that on November 1, 2004, he and another inmate, Phillip Elliott, were assigned 

to work at the CCI “welding shop.” Elliott had been designated a “lead man” in the shop 

where he helped direct other less-experienced inmates. George Gallion, the shop 

supervisor, had ordered Elliott to unload a shipment of dump truck beds and Elliott 

directed plaintiff to operate an overhead crane to assist him. 

{¶ 3} After plaintiff had used the crane to place one of the truck beds into a 

service bay, he hooked chains from the crane to the truck’s tailgate to remove it from 

the bed. Plaintiff then operated the crane to lift the bed approximately one foot above 

the floor while Elliott worked to disconnect the hinges and latches that secured the 
tailgate to the truck. Plaintiff testified that while the truck was suspended above the 

shop floor, the truck bed suddenly dropped as the tailgate swung away from the truck 

and struck him in the chest, causing serious injuries. 

{¶ 4} Tony Fultz, the industry manager for CCI’s vehicle modification center, 

testified that he arrived at the welding shop soon after the incident and found plaintiff 

lying on the floor. Fultz noticed that the chains were attached below “the hinge point” of 

the tailgate; a configuration he considered to be unsafe. 

{¶ 5} On the day of the incident, Gallion interviewed witnesses and drafted three 

administrative reports. First, Gallion completed an “Inmate Accident Report” which 

included a signed statement by Elliott that attributed the accident to plaintiff’s failure to 

follow Elliott’s direction to attach the crane hook onto the bed of the truck. (Defendant’s 

Exhibit K.) In his report, Gallion concluded that the cause of the accident was “a 

hazardous arrangement” and “improper starting or stopping of the crane and moving of 

the truck bed.” Second, Gallion completed an incident report wherein he stated that 

“eyewitnesses” confirmed that the incident occurred while plaintiff was attempting to lift 

the truck bed “with the tailgate chain instead of the bed hooks.” (Defendant’s Exhibit N.) 

Finally, Gallion issued a conduct report charging plaintiff with violations of shop 

procedures and institution rules. (Defendant’s Exhibit M.) According to Gallion, Elliott 

had previously advised plaintiff that the method he had used to hook and lift the tailgate 

was “an unsafe practice.” Plaintiff acknowledged that defendant’s Rules Infraction 

Board determined that he had failed to follow proper procedures and, as a result, his 

assignment to the welding shop was terminated. 

{¶ 6} Plaintiff testified that Elliott directed him to attach the chains to the tailgate 

and to lift the tailgate with the crane. Plaintiff stated that once the rear of the truck bed 

was suspended, he was unable to observe which components Elliott was working on 

and he was unaware that Elliott intended to completely disconnect the tailgate before 

plaintiff had an opportunity to lower the truck to the floor. Plaintiff testified that he 

complied with Elliott’s order to hook the chain to the tailgate so that he would not be 

reassigned or disciplined for failing to follow orders. Elliott testified that he directed 

plaintiff to hook the chains onto the bed of the truck, rather than the tailgate, and that he 
believed plaintiff had complied with his instructions when he began to release the “air 

lock” mechanism on the tailgate. 

{¶ 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. “[W]here a prisoner also performs labor for the state, the duty owed by the 

state must be defined in the context of those additional factors which characterize the 

particular work performed.” McCoy v. Engle (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 204, 208. The 

state therefore has a duty to protect inmates from unreasonable risks of harm arising 

out of the performance of such labor. Id. 

{¶ 9} With regard to training, Gallion testified that, in December 2001, he had 

personally instructed plaintiff regarding proper operation of the crane. (Defendant’s 

Exhibit D.) According to plaintiff’s shop record, he had also received on-the-job training 

and he had passed a test which qualified him to operate the overhead crane. 

(Defendant’s Exhibit E.) Plaintiff acknowledged that he had received both operational 

and safety training and he recalled having passed a written test before he was approved 

to operate the crane. Plaintiff testified that he had operated the crane on a daily basis 

prior to the incident. 

{¶ 10} Regarding the operation of the crane, plaintiff testified that a control box 

was used to direct the movement of the equipment. Plaintiff explained that the length of 
the cord on the control box required him to remain within approximately four feet of the 

truck bed while the crane was operating; however, the evidence showed that once the 

crane had been placed in position, the operator did not have to remain at the controls to 

maintain that position. Plaintiff testified that he was standing directly in front of the 

tailgate when it struck him. Steven Brooks, the Health and Safety Coordinator for CCI, 

conducted an investigation and issued an incident report wherein he concluded that “the 

tailgate was lifted from the wrong location and [plaintiff] was standing in front of the 

tailgate instead of off to one side.” (Defendant’s Exhibit I.) Both Gallion and Fultz 

explained that attaching a crane to any surface below “a pivot point,” such as a hinge, is 

an unsafe practice and that defendant’s training emphasized the danger of such 

practices. 

{¶ 11} Based upon the testimony and evidence adduced at trial, the court is not 

persuaded that plaintiff was ordered to attach the crane to the tailgate. Plaintiff’s 

testimony lacked credibility and the testimony of defendant’s witnesses was consistent 

and credible. Although plaintiff testified that he complied with Elliott’s order to avoid 

being disciplined, Elliott, Gallion, and Fultz each testified that it was common knowledge 

in the welding shop that inmates, including those who had been designated lead man, 

could not impose discipline. According to Gallion and Fultz, inmate workers were 

encouraged to report any safety-related concern to a shop supervisor. 

{¶ 12} The court finds that Elliott’s testimony regarding the configuration of the 

chains was particularly credible in light of the fact that he had been working beneath the 

suspended truck bed just before the accident occurred. Specifically, the court does not 

find it plausible that Elliott would have ordered plaintiff to attach the crane to the tailgate 

inasmuch as unfastening the tailgate while the truck bed was suspended subjected 

Elliott to an obvious risk of serious injury. 

{¶ 13} Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff failed to prove that 

defendant committed a breach of its duty to provide adequate operational and safety 

training for the crane. The court further finds that plaintiff’s own negligence in failing to 

properly operate the overhead crane in disregard for his own safety was the sole 

proximate cause of his injuries. 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 

JIMMY STRONG 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2008-03165 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

 This case was tried to the court on the issue of liability. The court has 

considered the evidence and, for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently 

herewith, 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. 

 _____________________________________ 

 CLARK B. WEAVER SR. 

 Judge 

cc: 

 
Paige J. McMahon 

Thomas M. Spetnagel 

42 East Fifth Street 

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 

Stephanie D. Pestello-Sharf 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

AMR/cmd

Filed March 16, 2011 

To S.C. reporter April 12, 2011