[Cite as Jones v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-5992.]

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

CHRISTOPHER JONES, Case No. 2010-11765 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Judge Joseph T. Clark 

 Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

 REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Defendant. 

{¶1} On September 6, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). On September 26, 2011, plaintiff filed 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 County, 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. 
Case No. 2010-11765 - 2 - ENTRY

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

defendant at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. 

Plaintiff alleges that on August 12, 2010, he stepped into the shower in the K-8 cell 

block and slipped and fell, breaking a bone in his right arm. Plaintiff alleges that 

defendant is negligent in not providing mats or non-slip strips for the showers. 

{¶5} Defendant argues that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff because any 

danger posed by the shower was open and obvious. 

{¶6} 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 defendant’s acts 

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

his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, ¶8, 

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

{¶7} 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, 702. 

{¶8} “Where a danger is open and obvious, a landowner owes no duty of care to 

individuals lawfully on the premises.” Armstrong, supra, syllabus. This rule is based 

upon the rationale that the very nature of an open and obvious danger serves as a 

warning, and that the “‘owner or occupier [of land] may reasonably expect that persons 
Case No. 2010-11765 - 3 - ENTRY

entering the premises will discover those dangers and take appropriate measures to 

protect themselves.’” Id. at ¶5, quoting Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co. (1992), 64 Ohio 

St.3d 642, 644. 

{¶9} In support of its motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s answers to 

interrogatories and the affidavit of Greg Holdren. In response to the interrogatories, 

plaintiff stated that he was very familiar with the shower in question inasmuch as he 

used it, or one like it, daily from December 2006 until December 2010. 

{¶10} Holdren states: 

{¶11} “1. I am currently employed full-time by [defendant] as the Health and 

Safety Coordinator at [SOCF] in Lucasville, Ohio. 

{¶12} “* * * 

{¶13} “3. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit and 

am competent to testify. 

{¶14} “4. SOCF does not utilize shower mats in its showers due to potential 

health-related issues, safety concerns, and sanitation. As is common knowledge, 

shower mats used by numerous individuals in a moist area can operate as a breeding 

ground for mildew and other germs. 

{¶15} “5. Moreover, due to the size of the showers at SOCF, if a shower mat 

was utilized, it would likely cover the drain of the shower itself. This would lead to 

standing water in the base of the shower and pose a potential safety issue of inmates. 

See Exhibit A, which is a true and accurate photograph depicting the inside of the 

showers at SOCF. 

{¶16} “6. Rather than utilizing shower mats at SOCF, inmates may obtain 

shower shoes that contain a no-slip sole that help to prevent inmates from slipping in 

the showers. * * * 

{¶17} “7. [Plaintiff] had the ability to purchase such no-slip shower shoes while 

housed at SOCF, and he did not.” 
Case No. 2010-11765 - 4 - ENTRY

{¶18} Plaintiff stated in his response that while he did not purchase shower 

shoes, he did borrow a pair from another inmate and that he was wearing them when he 

slipped. Additionally, plaintiff states that the shower itself was not properly cleaned and 

maintained and that a build-up of soap residue made the shower even more slippery. 

{¶19} Based upon the allegations contained in the complaint and the evidence 

provided by defendant, the court finds that the condition of the showers in plaintiff’s 

housing unit at SOCF did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. Indeed, by 

plaintiff’s own admission, he had managed to safely use the shower daily for a period of 

nearly four years. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that he was very familiar with the 

showers. Accordingly, to the extent that the showers presented a hazard, such a 

hazard was open and obvious. Thus, defendant owed no duty to plaintiff with regard to 

the shower, and plaintiff’s negligence claim is barred as a matter of law. 

{¶20} Based upon the foregoing, 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. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Ashley L. Oliker

Jennifer A. Adair 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Christopher Jones, #516-198 

P.O. Box 45699 

Lucasville, Ohio 45699 
Case No. 2010-11765 - 5 - ENTRY

Filed October 19, 2011 

To S.C. reporter November 18, 2011