Harris v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2018 Ohio 2276
Ohio Ct. Cl.2018Background
- Herman Harris, an inmate at Pickaway Correctional Institution, was assigned on May 2, 2016 to move frozen food on a tall, wheeled bun rack from a freezer to a food pulper and had limited experience moving loaded racks that distance.
- As Harris pushed the rack toward the pulper, a front wheel rolled into a recessed floor drain cover (a void between the drain cover and surrounding floor), the rack tipped, sheet pans slid and the rack fell on him; he sustained injuries including broken ribs.
- Harris initially told a corrections officer the floor was slick; the Inmate Accident Report he signed stated he "slipped pulling the rack to the pulper." He later filed Informal Complaint Resolutions about the drain.
- Photographs of the drain were admitted but it was unclear whether they depicted the drain’s exact condition at the time of the accident; estimates of the recess depth varied from about 1/2 inch (deposition) to 2.5 inches (trial).
- The magistrate found the recessed drain created a foreseeable, unreasonable danger in the context of inmate labor moving tall, narrow loaded racks, but Harris failed to prove ODRC created or had actual notice of the hazard or that it existed long enough for constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recessed drain constituted an actionable dangerous condition under ODRC's duty of reasonable care | Harris: the recessed drain created an unreasonable risk given common use of wheeled racks and caused his injury | ODRC: any defect was trivial/insubstantial ("two-inch rule") and not actionable | Held: The defect, in the context of the work, was an unreasonable danger (not de minimis) |
| Whether ODRC had actual or constructive notice of the hazard | Harris: deterioration visible in photos and presence of maintenance staff put ODRC on notice | ODRC: no evidence ODRC created or knew of the defect; no records or prior complaints establishing notice | Held: No actual notice; plaintiff failed to prove the hazard existed long enough for constructive notice |
| Whether plaintiff proved breach and proximate causation sufficient for negligence recovery | Harris: the dangerous drain caused the rack to tip and injure him | ODRC: absent notice or creation, there is no breach of ordinary care | Held: Causation established, but breach not proven due to lack of notice evidence; claim fails |
| Whether plaintiff’s injury alone permits an inference of negligence against ODRC | Harris: injury and condition of drain warrant inference | ODRC: injury alone is insufficient without proof of notice or creation | Held: Injury alone insufficient; direct proof required for inference of constructive notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 130 Ohio App.3d 742 (1998) (plaintiff bears burden to prove breach and proximate cause in negligence actions)
- Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 89 Ohio App.3d 107 (1993) (state owes inmates reasonable care to prevent injury from known or foreseeable dangerous conditions)
- Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (1981) ("two-inch rule": sidewalk defects two inches or less are generally not actionable)
- Parras v. Standard Oil Co., 160 Ohio St. 315 (1953) (injury alone does not permit an inference of negligence; direct proof required)