Lloyd v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
91 N.E.3d 134
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Damon Lloyd, an inmate at Chillicothe Correctional Institution (CCI), injured his right hand on Feb. 19, 2014 while adjusting a heavy window (70–80 lbs.) whose built‑in counterweight no longer worked.
- Inmates commonly used an improvised hook‑and‑drawstring method (laundry bag drawstring + bed‑frame hook) to prop broken windows; prison staff knew of the practice and did not prohibit it.
- Lloyd was extending the improvised rig when a drawstring snapped; the window fell and punctured/cut his right hand.
- Lloyd sued the Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction for negligence. A magistrate found the hazard was open and obvious and Lloyd solely at fault; the trial court adopted that decision.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the hook‑and‑drawstring method was not an open and obvious hazard and remanded for a comparative‑fault analysis; it upheld exclusion of two historical web documents as inadmissible hearsay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the open‑and‑obvious doctrine bars Lloyd's negligence claim | The hook‑and‑drawstring method was not an open or obvious hazard; prison had a duty to repair windows or eliminate unsafe practices | The hazard was open and obvious; no duty to protect from such hazards | Reversed: doctrine did not apply — the improvised method was not an open and obvious hazard |
| Admissibility of two exhibits (online histories of CCI/federal prison) | Exhibits admissible under Evid.R. 803(8) or 803(20) to show CCI is old | Exhibits hearsay and not public‑agency records or reputation evidence | Affirmed exclusion: documents not within Evid.R. 803(8) or (20); court took judicial notice that CCI is old |
| Whether Lloyd was negligent for using the improvised method | Lloyd relied on widely used method and lacked knowledge it could fail; alternatives limited in overheated dorm | Using an improvised hook/drawstring was negligent and the proximate cause of injury | Reversed: trial court erred by treating Lloyd as solely negligent without allocating fault; comparative‑fault analysis required |
| Whether appellee was negligent in failing to repair windows or prohibit method | Appellee negligent for failing to repair counterweights or provide safer means, increasing risk to inmates | Appellee owed no duty for open/obvious risks; alternatively, Lloyd’s conduct was sole proximate cause | Reversed: trial court failed to assess appellee’s potential negligence and to apportion fault under comparative negligence statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mtge. Co., 947 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 2011) (elements of negligence)
- Mussivand v. David, 544 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio 1989) (standard of reasonable care in custodial contexts)
- Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 721 N.E.2d 143 (Ohio Ct. App.) (prison’s duty and limits)
- Franks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 958 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio Ct. App.) (prison not insurer of inmate safety)