Opinion
# 2011-044-010 Claim No. 117570
11-15-2011
TORRES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Inmate's claim for personal injuries incurred when he allegedly fell off a truck during work detail was dismissed; Court found that cardboard box on the ground during unloading of recycling truck did not constitute a dangerous condition. Case information
UID: 2011-044-010 Claimant(s): DANIEL TORRES Claimant short name: TORRES Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 117570 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE Claimant's attorney: GARY E. DIVIS, ESQ. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant's attorney: BY: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: November 15, 2011 City: Binghamton Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, an inmate, seeks damages for injuries incurred when he allegedly fell off the side of a truck during the process of unloading recyclable materials at Elmira Correctional Facility (Elmira). Trial of the matter was bifurcated and held in the Binghamton District on October 19, 2011. This decision addresses only the issue of liability.
Claimant testified at trial that he was first assigned to the garbage detail at Elmira in 2008. He stated that the assignment was mandatory. He generally reported for his first shift at approximately 8:00 a.m., would work until 11:00 a.m., and then work an afternoon shift from about 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. He said there were usually about four other inmates on this detail, and the supervising officer was usually Correction Officer (CO) Gordon. He stated that a flat-bed truck with side rails lined with plywood was used in the collection process. The inmates and CO Gordon would go to different areas at the facility and collect garbage and recyclables, and then take them to the trash compactor in the west side yard. He said Gordon would drive the truck, and the inmates would walk. When they got to the trash compactor, Gordon would back the truck up to a platform on the trash compactor, and the inmates would toss the garbage into the compactor, and the recyclables into an adjacent large, wheeled bin. Claimant said that some inmates would climb onto the truck and some would remain on the ground. He said that which inmates were on the truck and which ones stayed on the ground was determined by "the [inmate] with the most seniority."Gordon did not instruct the inmates on who should perform which task.
All quotes herein are taken from the Court's recording of the proceedings, unless otherwise indicated.
Claimant stated that the distance from the ground to the top of the racks on the bed of the truck was approximately eight feet. He said there were no grab bars on the truck or compactor, and no ladder on the compactor. Claimant testified that he decided on his own that day to climb up onto the truck to toss the recyclables into the bin. He said he used one of the wheels as a step, and then climbed up the side of the truck and over the rails. He stated that the inmates would often climb up the side of the truck to stand in the bed. He said that no prison official had ever told him how to get onto the bed of the truck, or that he should not climb the side of the truck.
Claimant stated when he was done, he climbed back over the rails and down the side of the truck. He said that while he was climbing down, his hand slipped on a wet substance on one of the rails. His feet then reached the ground and he slipped on a piece of cardboard on the ground. He fell, and broke his wrist.
Subsequent to his accident, claimant filed a grievance regarding the matter.In that grievance, claimant stated that he slipped on loose cardboard as he was climbing off the truck. Notably, there was no mention in this grievance about claimant's hand slipping off the rail of the truck, or of a wet substance on the rail. As a result of the grievance, steps and a hand-hold were installed on the compactor, and the inmates were instructed to use the steps to climb up onto the truck, rather than climbing over the side rails.
Claimant's Exhibit 9.
Id. at 3.
On cross-examination, claimant acknowledged that he had been performing these tasks with the garbage detail for over a year. He had never complained to a prison official about any issues with regard to climbing in or out of the truck. He also stated that this was the first time he had encountered a wet substance on the truck rails.
Claimant rested his case at the close of his testimony.
CO Gordon, a long-time Department of Correctional Services (DOCS)employee, testified on defendant's behalf. Gordon's description of the garbage collection procedure was similar to claimant's testimony, although Gordon stated that they did not pick up any liquids. Gordon confirmed that the determination regarding which inmate would perform a particular job was made by the inmates with the most seniority. He stated that usually the inmates with the most seniority were on the platform and truck, while those with less seniority worked on the ground.
The Court notes that the duties of the former Department of Correctional Services are now being performed by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
Gordon said that claimant had been part of his work crew for a year or two prior to the accident. He said that claimant usually worked on the ground, unloading cardboard from the truck. Gordon testified that on the date of the accident, he believed that claimant was working on the ground. He said he never saw claimant on the truck that day. He believed that two inmates with more seniority than claimant were on the truck.
Claimant introduced various documents into evidence. The Ambulatory Health Record note pertaining to the accidentstated in pertinent part: "tripped over box, fell on [left] hand." The Inmate Injury Reportstates: "fell over box while [offloading] garbage." A To-From memostates: "[claimant] stated that he was unloading garbage from the truck and fell over a box."
Claimant's Exhibit 1, at 2.
Claimant's Exhibit 2.
Claimant's Exhibit 5.
It is well established that the State has a duty to maintain its facilities in a reasonably safe condition (Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997 [1983]), and with respect to the safety of persons on its property, the duty of the State is one of reasonable care under the circumstances (see Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513 [1984]; Preston v State of New York, supra; Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]). However, the State is not an insurer of the safety of its inmates, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the occurrence of an accident (see Killeen v State of New York, 66 NY2d 850 [1985]; Condon v State of New York, 193 AD2d 874 [1993]).
It is clear that when DOCS assigns an inmate a job, it owes that inmate a duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace and reasonably safe equipment with which to work (Martinez v State of New York, 225 AD2d 877 [1996]; Kandrach v State of New York, 188 AD2d 910 [1992]). On the other hand, an inmate is responsible for any failure to use ordinary care (Martinez v State of New York, supra; Carter v State of New York, 194 AD2d 967 [1993]), and must observe his or her surroundings to avoid accidents (Afolabi v State of New York, Ct Cl, Oct. 4, 2010, McCarthy, J., Claim No. 115098 [UID # 2010-040-055]).
To prevail on his claim, claimant must prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a dangerous condition existed; that the State either created said dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and failed to alleviate said condition within a reasonable time; that said dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the accident; and that claimant sustained damages (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688 [1996], affd 88 NY2d 955 [1996]). In order to constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent, and must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, supra at 837).
After carefully considering the testimony of all the witnesses, and closely observing their demeanor while they testified, as well as reviewing the documentary evidence submitted, the Court did not find claimant's testimony that he slipped on a cardboard box while climbing down off the truck to be credible. CO Gordon's testimony that claimant usually worked on the ground, combined with the documentary evidence stating that claimant fell over a box, leads the Court to the conclusion that claimant did trip over a cardboard box, but that the accident happened while claimant was on the ground. Claimant was simply not a credible witness.
Whether a condition is sufficiently dangerous that a defendant must take remedial measures depends upon the context or environment within which the condition is found. The defendant "will not be held liable for injuries arising from a condition on [its] property that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it" (Stanton v Town of Oyster Bay, 2 AD3d 835, 836 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]). The Court finds that the existence of cardboard material on the ground while inmates were offloading garbage and recyclables was a normal and foreseeable condition inherent to the situation and nature of the activity taking place at that time, and did not constitute a dangerous condition.
In light of the testimony and record herein, Claim No. 117570 is hereby dismissed. Any motions not previously determined are hereby denied. Let judgment be entered accordingly.
November 15, 2011
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims