Barksdale v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 395
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Christopher Barksdale, an inmate with a documented seizure disorder and other chronic conditions, alleged he had a valid lower-bunk restriction but was placed in an upper bunk and fell on February 20, 2013, injuring his head, neck, and back.
- Barksdale filed suit in the Court of Claims alleging negligence by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) for failing to honor the lower-bunk restriction.
- At trial the magistrate found Barksdale fell after misstepping when descending a ladder and that he declined a nurse’s offer to move him to a lower bunk; the magistrate concluded his own negligence proximately caused the injuries.
- Dr. Sheryl Stephens testified she issued a lower-bunk restriction because of a seizure diagnosis but, based on records, did not believe Barksdale’s other conditions justified a restriction or that he could not safely use the upper bunk at the time of the fall.
- The Court of Claims adopted the magistrate’s decision, finding the foreseeable risk addressed by the restriction was seizure-caused falls, but Barksdale’s fall was due to his negligence, not a seizure or other medical condition. The court noted the record lacked a trial transcript on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODRC’s failure to follow a lower-bunk restriction proximately caused Barksdale’s injuries | Barksdale: ODRC was negligent in not honoring the restriction; had he been on a lower bunk he would not have fallen | ODRC: Even if there was a breach, proximate cause was lacking because the fall resulted from Barksdale’s own misstep, not a seizure or breach | Court: Held proximate cause was Barksdale’s negligence; any breach was not the proximate cause |
| Whether Barksdale’s other medical conditions required a lower-bunk restriction under Protocol B-19 | Barksdale: His knee, back, vision, age, and time/lighting made upper bunk unsafe | ODRC: Dr. Stephens testified those conditions did not warrant a lower-bunk restriction; only seizure disorder did | Court: Accepted Dr. Stephens’ testimony; other conditions did not support restriction |
| Whether the magistrate/Court of Claims erred or findings were against manifest weight of evidence | Barksdale: Court ignored lighting, time, physical condition, and testimony that restriction was known; findings unsupported | ODRC: Trial testimony and evidence show misstep caused fall; Court’s factual findings are supported | Court: Overruled objections; absent transcript, appellate court presumes trial court’s factual findings correct |
| Whether appellate review is impeded by lack of transcript | Barksdale: Relied on video excerpts and record; challenged factual findings | ODRC: Appellant failed to provide a transcript or acceptable statement under App.R.9, so findings must be presumed correct | Court: Affirmed — without transcript or compliant statement, appellate review limited and presumption favors trial court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion reviewed on appeal)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (Ohio 1981) (elements of ordinary negligence)
- Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 130 Ohio App.3d 742 (10th Dist. 1998) (state owes inmates ordinary care against foreseeable risks)
- McCoy v. Engle, 42 Ohio App.3d 204 (10th Dist. 1988) (state custodial duty principles)
- Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140 (Ohio 1989) (breach assessed in light of foreseeability and individual circumstances)
- Clemets v. Heston, 20 Ohio App.3d 132 (6th Dist. 1985) (assessment of state's duty under custodial relationship)