Lloyd v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 9396
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Damon Lloyd, an inmate at Chillicothe Correctional Institution, was injured on Feb. 19, 2014 while adjusting an upper sash window in his dormitory that lacked a working counterweight. He used an improvised "hook-and-string" device made from a laundry bag drawstring and a metal hook from a bunk bed.
- The window sections were large and heavy; many windows in the dormitory would not stay open and inmates routinely propped them with cups or the hook-and-string method. Staff knew inmates used these makeshift devices and periodically removed cups but did not expressly prohibit the hook-and-string technique.
- While attaching additional strings to lower the window, a string/snapped and the window fell, causing a hook to cut and puncture plaintiff’s right fingers; he received prompt medical attention.
- The magistrate originally found the hazard open and obvious and recommended judgment for the defendant; the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the danger was not open and obvious and remanded for a comparative negligence analysis.
- On remand the magistrate concluded the state (defendant) breached its duty by failing to repair, secure, warn, or provide safe means to hold windows open given known inmate reliance, and that defendant’s negligence outweighed any fault by Lloyd; judgment was recommended for plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to protect from dangerous condition of windows | Lloyd: ODRC knew windows failed, inmates relied on them, so ODRC had duty to repair, provide safe means, secure, or warn | ODRC: hazard was open and obvious; no duty to guard against it (insurer argument) | Court: ODRC owed common-law duty; hazard not open and obvious per appellate ruling, so duty exists |
| Breach (failure to act regarding windows) | Lloyd: failure to repair/secure/warn foreseeably led inmates to jury‑rig devices and risk of injury | ODRC: tolerated inmate remedies; argued inmate's conduct was sole proximate cause | Held: ODRC breached by not taking reasonable precautions given foreseeability of improvised devices and resulting injury |
| Comparative negligence (plaintiff’s fault) | Lloyd: used window for ordinary purpose, no warning, widespread tolerated practice; plaintiff exercised due care | ODRC: plaintiff was negligent in using/altering makeshift device and caused own injury | Held: Any negligence by Lloyd is outweighed by ODRC’s negligence; plaintiff not barred from recovery under comparative negligence |
| Proximate causation (connection between ODRC acts/omissions and injury) | Lloyd: ODRC’s omissions set in motion foreseeable chain leading to injury | ODRC: injury resulted from plaintiff’s independent, intervening misuse | Held: ODRC’s omissions were a proximate cause; inmates’ improvised methods were foreseeable results of defendant’s inaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (explains R.C. 2315.19 comparative negligence allocation)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (foreseeability test for proximate cause)
- Mudrich v. Standard Oil Co., 153 Ohio St. 31 (discussion that one need not anticipate particular injury, only that an act is likely to cause injury)
- Perry v. Eastgreen Realty Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 51 (1978) (property owner liable only for known or reasonably foreseeable dangerous conditions)
- Zachariah v. Roby, 178 Ohio App.3d 471 (2008) (clarifies foreseeability standard: need not anticipate exact injury, only that some injury was foreseeable)