Welser v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2016 Ohio 7352
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff, an inmate at Pickaway Correctional Institution (PCI), operated an OPI perforator and on May 21, 2013 his left index finger was severed when he removed a bolted safety cover, activated the machine, and his hand was caught in the gears.
- Plaintiff had operator experience but no training to perform maintenance; inmate maintenance workers were responsible for repairs and controlled the tools needed to remove the cover.
- Plaintiff took tools from a maintenance cart without staff authorization, removed the gear-box cover, turned the machine on to observe moving parts, and was distracted by a fellow inmate (line leader) before the injury.
- Defendant prison staff (managers and floor supervisors) testified they were not aware plaintiff removed the cover or was performing repairs; the machine was old and had minor operational issues but had not caused prior injuries and was periodically serviced by inmate maintenance workers.
- Magistrate bifurcated liability and damages, tried liability, and found plaintiff failed to prove defendant breached a duty or that defendant’s conduct proximately caused the injury; plaintiff’s own negligence was the proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant breached duty of reasonable care by allowing dangerous condition / failing supervision | Welser: staff knew or should have known of perforator problems and inmates removing cover; they failed to prevent risk | ODRC: machine was safe to operate, maintenance workers present, policies prohibit operators doing repairs, staff did not know plaintiff removed cover | No breach; defendant did not know and had rules and maintenance in place |
| Whether staff had notice of a practice of operators removing the cover such that they should have acted | Welser: prior complaints and sporadic incidents put staff on notice | ODRC: evidence of others removing covers was sporadic and unclear; supervisors had not observed operators remove the cover | No constructive or actual notice established |
| Causation / proximate cause — did defendant’s conduct cause injury? | Welser: line leader’s pressure and staff failures contributed to injury | ODRC: plaintiff’s unilateral act of removing cover, running the machine, and reaching caused injury | Held plaintiff’s own negligence was proximate cause; any defendant negligence, if shown, would be outweighed by plaintiff’s negligence |
| Whether inmate supervision/training obligations were breached | Welser: inadequate supervision/training and tool control | ODRC: inmates received operator manuals; maintenance/training responsibilities belonged to maintenance workers; tools controlled by staff | Held defendant met its duty given context; plaintiff bore responsibility to avoid danger |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 130 Ohio App.3d 742 (10th Dist.) (plaintiff must prove breach and proximate causation by preponderance in negligence claim)