Court Opinion

ID: 9890127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 15:09:57.929163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:24.607875
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-3716.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 MARK GRIFFIN                                            Case No. 2022-00339JD

         Plaintiff                                       Judge Lisa L. Sadler
                                                         Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck
         v.
                                                         ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF                                      MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

         Defendant

        {¶1} Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of Defendant, brings this action
for negligence arising from allegations that he was electrically shocked and injured by the
light switch in his cell at the Toledo Correctional Institution (ToCI) on June 26, 2021. (A
separate claim for retaliation based upon Plaintiff’s use of the prison grievance system
was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on September 8, 2022.)
        {¶2} On July 24, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant
to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff filed responses on August 7 and 9, 2023. The motion is now
before the court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to Civ.R. 56 and L.C.C.R. 4.
        {¶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 Cty.,
Case No. 2022-00339JD                        -2-                                     ENTRY

104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, 821 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 6, citing Temple v. Wean United,
Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977).
       {¶5} “The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing
the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Starner v. Onda, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 22AP-599, 2023-Ohio-1955, ¶ 20, citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280,
293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). “The moving party does not discharge this initial burden
under Civ.R. 56 by simply making conclusory allegations.” Id. “Rather, the moving party
must affirmatively demonstrate by affidavit or other evidence allowed by Civ.R. 56(C) that
there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Id. “Once the moving party discharges its initial burden, summary
judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party does not respond, by affidavit or as
otherwise provided in Civ.R. 56, with specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists
for trial.” Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2022-Ohio-4783, 204 N.E.3d 1174, ¶ 17
(10th Dist.), citing Dresher at 293; Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 674 N.E.2d
1164 (1997); Civ.R. 56(E).
       {¶6} As the basis for its motion, Defendant argues that “[b]ecause DRC had no
actual or constructive notice of any hazard or defect that rendered the light in Mr. Griffin’s
cell unreasonably dangerous, DRC did not have a duty to protect him from that alleged
risk. Therefore, DRC cannot be held negligent as a matter of law.” Motion, p. 2.
       {¶7} “In a negligence action, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant breached a duty owed to him and that
the breach proximately caused the injury.” Harris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-81, 2019-Ohio-5137, ¶ 7.
       {¶8} “Typically under Ohio law, premises liability is dependent upon the injured
person’s status as an invitee, licensee, or a trespasser. * * * However, with respect to
custodial relationships 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.” Cordell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab.
& Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-749, 2009-Ohio-1555, ¶ 6.
Case No. 2022-00339JD                        -3-                                     ENTRY

       {¶9} “Although the state is not an insurer of the safety of its prisoners, once the
state becomes aware of a dangerous condition in the prison, it is required to take the
reasonable care necessary to make certain that the prisoner is not injured.” Barnett v.
Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-1186, 2010-Ohio-4737, ¶ 23.
       {¶10} To sustain his claim of negligence, it is Plaintiff’s “burden to demonstrate that
[Defendant] had notice of the condition of which he complains.” Id. at ¶ 23, citing Presley
v. Norwood, 36 Ohio St.2d 29, 31, 303 N.E.2d 81 (1973). “Notice may be actual or
constructive, the distinction being the manner in which the notice is obtained rather than
the amount of information obtained.” Watson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 11AP-606, 2012-Ohio-1017, ¶ 9. “Actual notice exists where the information
was personally communicated to or received by the party.” Jenkins v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-787, 2013-Ohio-5106, ¶ 23. “Constructive
notice is that notice which the law regards as sufficient to give notice and is regarded as
a substitute for actual notice.” Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 09AP-1052, 2010-Ohio-4736, ¶ 14.
       {¶11} Defendant, in support of its motion, submitted affidavits from two of its
employees: Matthew Wagner, who was a Correctional Sergeant at ToCI at all times
relevant to the complaint, and Benjamin Sommers, II, who was the Building Construction
Superintendent at ToCI at all times relevant to the complaint.
       {¶12} Wagner avers, in part, that when an inmate is assigned to a new cell, staff
inspect the cell for safety and security issues, and staff also make “[q]uality rounds of
inmate living areas * * * on a routine basis for the purpose of assessing the functioning of
the specific units within the institution including any maintenance issue affecting the
area/location. Rounds include visual inspection of cells, examining operational issues,
and speaking with the inmates and inquiring about issues/concerns they may have.”
Wagner Affidavit, ¶ 5, 7.     Unit staff are responsible for notifying the maintenance
department through a work order or other written record of any damage to cells or
potential hazard or defect so that such issues can be fixed or corrected. Id. at ¶ 6, 8-9.
“Inmates may also submit kites, internal complaints, and grievances to report and directly
pursue any concerns regarding inmate health and safety.” Id. at ¶ 10. From February 3,
2021, through the time of the incident on June 26, 2021, Plaintiff was the only inmate
Case No. 2022-00339JD                          -4-                                     ENTRY

assigned to the cell in question, which was a single-occupancy cell in a restrictive housing
unit. Id. at ¶ 14, 17. Plaintiff “never reported or raised any concerns regarding the light
or conditions of his cell until after this incident”, nor had any other inmates previously
raised such concerns about the cell. Id. at ¶ 18-19. “Inspections and rounds of the unit
did not reveal or note any defect in Mr. Griffin’s cell or living areas in the months prior this
incident.” Id. at ¶ 20. Wagner states that prior to Plaintiff reporting the incident he “had
no knowledge of any defect with the light or potential electrical hazard in” the cell, nor
prior “knowledge of any inmate or DRC staff being shocked or otherwise injured by the
light in [the cell].” Id. at ¶ 21-22.
       {¶13} In his affidavit, Sommers describes, in part, how cells are routinely inspected
for maintenance issues and how potential safety hazards, defects, or other issues are to
be documented in writing. Sommers Affidavit, ¶ 4-6. Sommers “reviewed all maintenance
records from 2021 and there were no work orders or documentation of any deficiency
and/or potential hazard” for the cell in question prior to the incident. Id. at ¶ 9. Sommers
avers that he “also reviewed [his] older communication and never received any kite,
informal complaint, or grievance from Mr. Griffin regarding any issues/concerns with the
light or conditions of [the cell] before this incident.” Id. at ¶ 11.
       {¶14} Plaintiff’s responses are nearly devoid of any argument or legal authority but
he asserts that “[t]here is a genuine issue and material fact as to cause of plaintiff’s
electrocution, and shock, and (ODRC employees) listed it as; electrical failure, and
electrical malfunction,.” (Emphasis sic.) As evidence, Plaintiff submitted five documents
that he explains were received in discovery and which, in his view, are “related to actual
cause of electrical burn and shock.”
       {¶15} Upon review, the affidavits of Wagner and Sommers demonstrate that
Defendant did not have notice of any hazard associated with the light switch in Plaintiff’s
cell before the incident. The documents that Plaintiff submitted in response include an
incident report, an inmate accident report, a work order request, a maintenance record,
and a Rules Infraction Board document, all of which were created after the incident. Even
when viewing the evidence most strongly in Plaintiff’s favor, the documents that he
submitted fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant had
notice of the alleged hazard. While it appears from at least one of these documents and
Case No. 2022-00339JD                       -5-                                    ENTRY

others attached to the complaint that there was a dispute at some point about whether
the incident was caused by Plaintiff tampering with the light switch as opposed to some
other electrical failure for which he had no fault, the basis for Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment does not involve that issue and instead rests on the question of
whether Defendant had notice—actual or constructive—of the alleged hazard. On that
question, reasonable minds can only conclude that Defendant lacked notice and therefore
cannot be liable on Plaintiff’s claim of negligence. See Barnett, 2010-Ohio-4737, at ¶ 24
(in negligence claim, inmate failed to establish that prison had notice of a problem with
electric device that shocked him); Hill v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 12AP-265, 2012-Ohio-5304, ¶ (in negligence claim, prison visitor failed to establish
that prison had notice an electrical box cover had been removed).
        {¶16} Based upon the foregoing, the court concludes that there are no genuine
issues of material fact and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As
a result, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of Defendant. All previously scheduled events are VACATED.
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.

                                           LISA L. SADLER
                                           Judge

Filed September 27, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/12/23