[Cite as Barrett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-3180.]

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

BRANDON BARRETT 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-07831 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

DECISION

{¶ 1} On April 25, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff did not file a response. The motion is now before the 

court on a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). 

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

{¶ 3} “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 Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

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

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

defendant at the London Correctional Institution (LoCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 10, 2010, he slipped, fell, and was injured in the shower 

that adjoins his cell in the Special Management Housing unit (SMH) at LoCI. Plaintiff 

asserts that his fall was due to the fact that the shower did not drain properly and was 

not equipped with safety devices such as safety mats and handrails. 

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

by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant’s 

acts or omissions resulted in a breach of that duty, and that the breach proximately 

caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 2003-

Ohio-2573, citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77. 

{¶ 6} Under Ohio law, the duty owed by an owner or occupier of premises 

ordinarily depends on whether the injured person is an invitee, a licensee, or a 

trespasser. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 

1996-Ohio-137. However, an inmate incarcerated in a state penal institution is not 

afforded the status of any of the traditional classifications. In the context of the custodial 

relationship between the state and its inmates, the state has a duty to exercise 

reasonable care to prevent prisoners in its custody from being injured by dangerous 

conditions about which the state knows or should know. Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab 

& Corr. (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 107, 112; McCoy v. Engle (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 204. 

The state is not the insurer of inmate safety, however. See Williams v. Ohio Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 61 Ohio Misc.2d 699, at 702. 

{¶ 7} In support of its motion, defendant filed the affidavits of LoCI employees 

Michael Lain and Charles Hodge. In his affidavit, Hodge states: 

{¶ 8} “1. I have personal knowledge of and I am competent to testify to the 

facts contained in this Affidavit. 

{¶ 9} “2. I am employed by [defendant] as a Correctional Officer at [LoCI] in 

London, Ohio. I have worked as a correctional officer for [defendant] for one year. Prior 
to working as a correctional officer, I worked on the farm at LoCI as a correctional farm 

coordinator for five years. 

{¶ 10} “3. As a part of working as a correctional officer for [defendant], my 

duties and responsibilities include maintaining the safety and security of the institution 

and the individuals within it. To carry out my duties as a correctional officer at LoCI, I 

am assigned to work certain posts within the institution. 

{¶ 11} “4. Although I have worked other posts within the institution, I generally 

am assigned to work as a correctional officer in the [SMH] segregation unit. SMH is 

made up of three ‘pods’ or hallways lined with cells on either side. Inmates housed in 

this unit have restricted privileges and remain in their cells for approximately 23 hours 

per day. 

{¶ 12} “5. When working this post, part of my duties include overseeing the 

inmates housed in this unit. To do this, security checks are conducted to monitor the 

inmate. When doing a security check, a correctional officer walks down each hallway of 

the unit and examines/looks into the window of each cell and each shower area. The 

entire cell and shower area is visible through these windows. Approximately one third 

of the cell door is a window that is at eye-level so that the inmates can easily be 

monitored by the guards. There is a separate window that is also eye-level that looks 

into the shower area for inspection and monitoring. If any issue or concern - including 

any maintenance concern - is observed, the correctional officer addresses and reports 

the matter. If a clogged/malfunctioning shower drain is reported or observed, the issue 

is reported to the maintenance department. 

{¶ 13} “6. The inmates housed in the segregation unit are served their meals in 

their cells, rather than reporting to the cafeteria to eat. After the inmates’ meals are 

delivered to the segregation unit, the correctional officers assigned to that area serve 

the trays to the inmates. To do this, a correctional officer assigned to the area 

approaches the cell window and then slides the tray into the food hatch/cuff port that is 

directly below the window. 

{¶ 14} “7. On April 10, 2010, I worked the second shift in SMH, the segregation 

unit. On this date, [plaintiff] was housed within SMH in B-Pod cell number 34. Security 

checks of this cell, as well as with the other cells in the unit, were conducted at: 2:04 
p.m., 2:15 p.m., 2:41 p.m., 3:06 p.m., 4:01 p.m., 4:26 p.m., 4:42 p.m., 5:32 p.m., and 

5:48 p.m. Then at 6:15 p.m., the inmates housed in B-Pod, including plaintiff, were 

served their meals. At each of these times, a correctional officer examined the inmates’ 

cells through the cell door window and through the shower window. To protect my 

safety as well as the other individuals in the institution, I am constantly being observant 

of issues or concerns with inmates’ cells. 

{¶ 15} “8. Then, at 6:47 p.m. on said date, I walked down the B-Pod to pick up 

dinner trays when [plaintiff’s] cellmate started kicking the door and yelling for a 

correctional officer. I went to this cell and he pointed at [plaintiff] who way lying on the 

floor by his shower. Upon seeing him on the floor, I immediately called for medical 

assistance. 

{¶ 16} “9. I observed the shower area where [plaintiff] was lying on the ground 

and no standing water was present. The drain did not appear to be clogged in any way. 

If the drain had been malfunctioning or * * * clogged, I would have reported the condition 

to maintenance. Further, at no time prior to [plaintiff’s] incident was a malfunction or 

issue with the drain observed. Additionally, no other issues/equipment malfunctions of 

any sort in the shower area were observed. 

{¶ 17} “10. During my time as a correctional officer, I have never experienced 

the drain/showers in the segregation unit malfunctioning. Given the setup of the cell 

area, if the drain was clogged, the water would have spilled out of the cell into the 

hallway.” 

{¶ 18} Lain states: 

{¶ 19} “1. I have personal knowledge of and I am competent to testify to the 

facts contained in this Affidavit. 

{¶ 20} “2. I am employed by [defendant] as the Building Maintenance 

Superintendent at [LCI] in London, Ohio. I have held this position since 1989. I have 

been employed by [defendant] since 1981. 

{¶ 21} “3. As part of my duties and responsibilities as the Building Maintenance 

Superintendent, I oversee the maintenance department at LoCI. I ensure that 

maintenance issues are addressed timely. 
{¶ 22} “4. In addition, as part of my duties and responsibilities, I maintain 

records that document when all complaints relating to maintenance concerns are 

received as well as the work orders issued. A review of the records and work orders 

from January 1, 2010 through April 10, 2010, show that no complaints were received 

nor were any work orders submitted relating to cell shower drainage issues anywhere in 

the [SMH], often referred to as the segregation unit, at LoCI. If a complaint or work 

order was received, it would have been recorded.” 

{¶ 23} Civ.R. 56(E) provides in pertinent part: 

{¶ 24} “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as 

provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials 

of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided 

in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If 

the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered 

against the party.” 

{¶ 25} Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with an affidavit or other evidence 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. 

{¶ 26} Based upon the undisputed affidavit testimony provided by defendant, the 

only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that there was no drain 

clog or other malfunction in plaintiff’s shower that caused an unsafe condition. Plaintiff 

has not shown that defendant was under any legal obligation to install grab bars or 

place shower mats in the shower in question. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be 

granted and 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 
BRANDON BARRETT 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-07831 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

 A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently 

herewith, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and 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: 

 

Emily M. Simmons 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Brandon Barrett, #617-347 

London Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 69 

London, Ohio 43140 

MR/cmd

Filed June 13, 2011 

To S.C. reporter June 22, 2011