[Cite as Easley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-2623.]

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

ANDRE EASLEY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-01221 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging negligence. The issues of liability and 

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

Plaintiff’s July 22, 2010 motion for a court view of the area where plaintiff was injured is 

DENIED. 

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

defendant at the Ross Correctional Institution (RCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. On 

December 17, 2009, plaintiff was working as a cook in the RCI kitchen when he suffered 

burns to both hands from near-boiling water. According to plaintiff, he was attempting to 

clear a clog in the drain of a kettle when the water rushed out unexpectedly. Plaintiff 

testified that there was a hole in the rubber gloves he was wearing and that the hot 

water penetrated the gloves. Although he had previously performed the procedure 

numerous times without incident, plaintiff felt that the technique was dangerous and that 

defendant should not have permitted him to do it. According to plaintiff, defendant failed 

to properly train and supervise him. 
Case No. 2010-01221 - 2 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶ 3} In order to prevail upon his claim of negligence, plaintiff 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, 81, 2003-Ohio-2573, citing 

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, 485. Reasonable care is that which would be utilized by an ordinarily prudent 

person under similar circumstances. Murphy v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. 

No. 02AP-132, 2002-Ohio-5170, ¶13. A duty arises when a risk is reasonably 

foreseeable. Menifee, supra. Such a duty includes the responsibility to exercise 

reasonable care to protect inmates against those unreasonable risks of physical harm 

associated with institutional work assignments. Boyle v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1990), 

70 Ohio App.3d 590, 592. 

{¶ 4} 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. 

{¶ 5} Inmate Anthony Brown was cooking chicken in a large kettle when plaintiff 

was burned. Brown testified that he had worked in the RCI kitchen for a “few months” at 

the time of the incident and that he had received most of his training “on the job” from 

other inmates. Brown stated that the drain used to empty the kettle became clogged 

with pieces of chicken. According to Brown, the procedure for clearing such a clog was 

to partially unscrew the drain valve handle and use an approximately 18-inch “baby 

bottle” brush to clear the clog. Brown testified that on the day of the incident, he asked 

plaintiff to help him clear the clog. According to Brown, as plaintiff successfully cleared 
Case No. 2010-01221 - 3 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

the clog, hot water spewed out of the valve and onto plaintiff’s hands. Brown testified 

that plaintiff was not wearing gloves when he began the procedure and that he put on 

black rubber gloves only after the water began to pour out. 

{¶ 6} Inmate James Leach testified that he had been working in the RCI kitchen 

as a cook for about six months prior to the time when plaintiff was burned but that he did 

not see the incident occur. Leach estimated that the large kettles were approximately 

55 gallons in size and that he had been instructed to put on rubber gloves, unscrew the 

valve handle, and use a large “baby bottle” brush to clear a clog. Leach stated that he 

learned the procedure from another inmate and that he had performed it approximately 

ten times. According to Leach, it was not uncommon for hot water to splash on his 

hands during the procedure. 

{¶ 7} Kevan Hatfield testified by way of deposition that he had been an inmate 

cook in the RCI kitchen for five years prior to the time that plaintiff was burned, that he 

was familiar with plaintiff from working in the kitchen with him, and that he witnessed the 

incident.1

 According to Hatfield, plaintiff was attempting to clear a clog in the drain valve 

of the kettle when water flowed out and burned him. Hatfield observed that plaintiff was 

wearing cloth “hot gloves” that are normally used for carrying hot pans about the 

kitchen. Hatfield testified that he was familiar with the process for clearing a clog in the 

kettle drain, and that another inmate had instructed him in the process when he began 

working in the kitchen. Hatfield’s description of the process was similar to that of 

Brown, and Leach, but he also stated that plaintiff failed to put on the black rubber 

gloves to protect his hands. According to Hatfield, when inmates in the kitchen needed 

the gloves, they could simply retrieve a pair from the “dish room.” 

{¶ 8} Stanley Potter is employed by defendant as a Food Service Coordinator. 

Potter testified that he was on duty at the time of the incident, but was in another area of 

 

1

Plaintiff objected to the admission of Hatfield’s deposition. Defendant filed the deposition the day prior to 

trial pursuant to Civ.R. 32 and argued that Hatfield was unavailable pursuant to Civ.R. 32(A)(3)(c) 

inasmuch as he was imprisoned at the time of trial. Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED and Hatfield’s 
Case No. 2010-01221 - 4 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

the kitchen when it happened. According to Potter, Brown was new to the kitchen and 

should not have been cooking the chicken by himself. Potter was unaware of how or 

why Brown was assigned to cook the chicken, but he admitted that the head inmate 

cook has authority to assign tasks to other inmates. Potter testified that inmates are 

instructed to have him check to see that the chicken has reached a safe temperature 

and is fully cooked before draining the kettle. Potter stated that on the day of the 

incident, he was not asked to check the temperature of the chicken in the kettle in 

question and thus plaintiff and Brown should not have been draining the kettle at that 

time. 

{¶ 9} With regard to clogs in the kettle drains, Potter testified that the procedure 

outlined by the various inmates was the normal procedure, and that it is inevitable that 

water will get on an inmate’s hands when unclogging the drain; that wearing the black 

rubber gloves was essential to avoid burns. Potter further testified that the method was 

being used when he started working in the kitchen five years prior, and was the most 

effective method that he knew of for clearing clogs. 

{¶ 10} Although he did not witness the incident, Potter stated that he arrived in 

the area immediately thereafter. As plaintiff raised his hands in the air he witnessed 

water pour out of the rubber gloves plaintiff was wearing. Potter also noticed that 

plaintiff was wearing cloth gloves under the rubber gloves. Potter testified that he was 

familiar with plaintiff from his service in the kitchen and found him to be likeable and 

competent, but, in his opinion, plaintiff should have known better than to attempt to clear 

the clog while wearing cloth gloves. Regarding supervision of the inmates working in 

the kitchen, Potter testified that during meal preparation there are seven food service 

coordinators who supervise 40 to 50 inmates, six to eight of whom are cooks. 

{¶ 11} Wayne Ford is employed by defendant as an RCI Food Service Manager 

1. Ford testified that he was on duty on the day of the incident, but that he did not 

 

deposition is admitted as Defendant’s Exhibit H. 
Case No. 2010-01221 - 5 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

witness the incident and that his duties do not include direct supervision of the inmates 

working in the kitchen. Ford stated that the drains of the kettles clog on a regular basis 

and that the procedure outlined by the other witnesses is the accepted practice. While it 

is common for water to pour out of the drain when it is being unclogged, Ford was 

unaware of anyone being burned as a result during his three years at RCI. 

{¶ 12} Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff failed to establish 

that defendant committed a breach of its duty of care. The court further finds that 

plaintiff’s own lack of care was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff’s 

admission that he was familiar with the accepted practice for unclogging the kettle drain 

and that he had successfully performed the task in the past, combined with Potter’s 

testimony that plaintiff was a competent worker, convinces the court that plaintiff knew 

or should have known that wearing the black rubber gloves was required for his safety. 

Instead, plaintiff inexplicably attempted to clear the clog while wearing cloth hot gloves 

which became soaked with hot water. Plaintiff then compounded the problem by putting 

rubber gloves over the cloth ones, which caused the hot water to remain in contact with 

his hands for an extended period of time. Based upon the foregoing, the court further 

finds that the procedure used to unclog the drains is not unreasonably hazardous, and 

that inmates working in the kitchen, including plaintiff, were made aware of the risks 

involved and properly trained in the procedure. Accordingly, judgment is recommended 

in favor of defendant. 

 A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days of 

the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 

14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, 

any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections 

are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual 

finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or 

conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically 

objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the 
Case No. 2010-01221 - 6 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

 _____________________________________ 

 MATTHEW C. RAMBO 

 Magistrate 

cc: 

 

Douglas R. Folkert 

Emily M. Simmons 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Richard F. Swope 

6480 East Main Street, Suite 102 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 

MR/cmd

Filed May 16, 2011 

To S.C. reporter May 26, 2011