Opinion
No. 86-07106.
Decided November 14, 1988.
William R. Cromley, for plaintiff.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General, and Sheryl Creed Maxfield, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
On July 1, 1986, plaintiff, Charles Watkins, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF") at the time pertinent hereto, filed a complaint alleging he was injured when defendant negligently required him to cut binding tape on a paper cutter at the print shop at said facility. Specifically, plaintiff states that defendant used the paper cutter for purposes for which it was not designed, that defendant knew of the danger in using the machine for that purpose and that defendant failed to instruct or warn plaintiff against using the machine for that purpose.
Defendant denies that it was negligent in using the paper cutter to cut binding tape. Defendant also denies that it failed to instruct plaintiff on the safety hazards while using the paper cutter. Finally, defendant contends that if the court finds it was negligent, its negligence was less than that of plaintiff. Trial on this matter was held on September 19 and 21, 1988. The sole issue of liability was heard at that time. Based on the evidence presented at trial, and the parties' post-trial briefs, the referee makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
1. On January 3, 1986, plaintiff began work in the Ohio Prison Industries ("OPI") print shop at SOCF.
2. On February 24, 1986, plaintiff was injured while using the 42" Seybold Citation Paper Cutting machine which is in the OPI print shop at SOCF.
3. Upon his assignment to the print shop, plaintiff was given a tour of the shop. During the tour Allen "Tony" Pfau, Printing Supervisor II, described each of the approximately ten to fifteen machines in the shop and their respective functions. Upon completion of the tour, plaintiff signed an OPI print shop safety procedure form, and an acknowledgment of safety practices form.
4. On or about January 5, 1986, plaintiff received his job assignment in the bindery and as a porter in the print shop.
5. Approximately one week after plaintiff began working in the print shop, inmate Hernandez demonstrated to plaintiff how to operate the 42" Seybold Citation Paper Cutting machine. Plaintiff's training on the paper cutter was not comprehensive. Rather, plaintiff was trained on a job-by-job basis, including how to cut binding tape.
6. On February 24, 1986, while using the paper cutter to cut binding tape, plaintiff's foot slipped onto the treadle causing the clamp to be lowered onto plaintiff's hand.
Conclusions of Law
It has been determined that inmates working in the correctional institution in which they are incarcerated are not employees of the state of Ohio. Fondern v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (1977), 51 Ohio App.2d 180, 5 O.O.3d 325, 367 N.E.2d 901; McCoy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (1986), 31 Ohio App.3d 228, 31 OBR 511, 511 N.E.2d 398; Itson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (Oct. 18, 1988), Ct. of Claims No. 86-12657, unreported. This, however, merely means that plaintiff is not entitled to some of the protections and benefits pronounced in the Ohio Revised Code, such as workers' compensation. Fondern and McCoy, supra. Nevertheless, inmates who are injured while working in a prison shop or industry may have a cause of action in negligence. "`* * * An injured prisoner seeking damages must prove that the negligence of responsible officials, or agents, of the state of Ohio is the proximate cause of his injury. * * *'" Fondern, supra, 51 Ohio App.2d at 183, 5 O.O.3d at 327, 367 N.E.2d at 903, citing Watson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (Mar. 16, 1976), Ct. of Claims No. 75-0204, unreported.
In order for plaintiff to maintain an action for negligence he must prove defendant had a duty, breached that duty and an injury proximately resulted from defendant's breach. Di Gildo v. Caponi (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 125, 47 O.O.2d 282, 247 N.E.2d 732; 70 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1986) 36-37, Negligence, Section 1. The existence of defendant's duty depends on the foreseeability of plaintiff's injury. Thompson v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co. (1950), 9 Ohio St.2d 116, 38 O.O.2d 294, 224 N.E.2d 131. Whether or not plaintiff's injury was foreseeable depends on defendant's knowledge. Id.
Defendant has a duty to provide inmates with a safe place to work and with safe equipment in good repair and properly maintained. Fondern, supra; 60 American Jurisprudence 2d (1987) 1273-1274, Penal and Correctional Institutions, Section 203. In this vein, defendant has the duty to use a particular machine in a reasonably safe manner, i.e., to use the machine in a manner which would prevent foreseeable and unreasonable risks.
Pursuant to the Seybold paper cutter's operating manual, the paper cutter is equipped to cut small labels or card stock. Therefore, standing alone, the use of the machine to cut binding tape may not constitute using the cutter improperly.
However, the operating manual provides a special starting arrangement for smaller items which is designed to give the operator maximum safety. This starting arrangement is a foolproof way of keeping the operator's hands out of the way of both the clamp and the blade while cutting small, unstable items. Based on the testimony of virtually all the witnesses, the method described in Seybold's operating manual was not used to cut binding tape at the time of plaintiff's injury. Instead, machine operators were taught and permitted to cut binding tape by holding the tape with their fingers while stepping on the foot treadle. The operator's manual indicates that the foot treadle is to be used when no cutting is involved, i.e., to bring the clamp to rest on the table when the machine is not in use.
The referee finds that in failing to use the Seybold cutter as provided by the operator's manual, it is foreseeable that plaintiff would be injured. In this regard, defendant breached its duty to plaintiff in failing to use the machine in a reasonably safe manner.
Further, upon the referee's viewing of the Seybold paper cutter at SOCF, as well as observation of the procedure plaintiff followed in cutting binding tape, defendant knew or should have known plaintiff was at an unreasonable risk of being injured. Common sense indicates that placing the binding tape under the blade and clamp in such a way that plaintiff's fingers were only one-eighth to one-fourth inch away from the clamp as it was lowered is dangerous. Furthermore, the referee finds that it is somewhat irrelevant whether the treadle was free-moving or tense, thereby causing the clamp to be springy or taut. The mere fact that plaintiff's fingers were allowed to be so close to the clamp as it came down is sufficient to find the machine was used in a manner which would foreseeably cause an unreasonable risk of injury to plaintiff.
Plaintiff also alleges he did not receive adequate training in the safe operation of the paper cutter. Evidence presented at trial indicates that upon receiving a job in the print shop, plaintiff was given a tour of the shop which lasted approximately fifteen minutes and covered between twelve to fifteen machines. The referee finds this tour is insufficient as training in the use and safety components of each machine. Fifteen minutes for fifteen machines is an extremely short period of time to comprehend the proper use of each machine; this is only enough time for a cursory description of the operations a machine performs. As observed by the referee upon her visit to the institution, one minute is not enough time to demonstrate how to cut binding tape on the Seybold cutter. It cannot be enough time to adequately explain all the safety precautions an operator should take while operating the machine.
Defendant argues that the initial, fifteen-minute tour is not meant to be a complete training course. Rather, it is an orientation to the print shop. Nevertheless, defendant required plaintiff to sign an acknowledgment of safety procedures form and an OPI print shop safety form indicating plaintiff had learned safety procedures during his fifteen-minute orientation. It is inconsistent for defendant to say its orientation is not meant to be training, yet expect inmates to acknowledge they have been trained in safety procedures during said orientation.
Therefore, the referee finds plaintiff's signature on the safety practices form is inconclusive that he received shop training. The form is merely a laundry list of vague instructions. Nowhere on the form does it explain how or why these measures must be implemented. Regarding defendant's acknowledgment of safety practices form, it is noted that there is a check mark next to the stitcher machine. Apparently, this means plaintiff was instructed on the safety practices of the stitcher. There is no similar evidence regarding the paper cutter. Therefore, the referee finds defendant failed to adequately train plaintiff in the safe operation of the Seybold paper cutter.
In summary, defendant had the duty to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work and with safe equipment with which to work. In addition, defendant had the duty to adequately train plaintiff. Based on the evidence presented at trial and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the referee finds defendant breached its duty to plaintiff and said breach caused injury to plaintiff's hand. Consequently, the referee recommends that the court find defendant liable for damages to plaintiff.
Entry accordingly.