{
  "id": 2780452,
  "name": "Russell F. Schoeneich, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schoeneich v. State",
  "decision_date": "1963-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 4887",
  "first_page": "365",
  "last_page": "367",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 365"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 6130,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "sha256": "d92825111bfcf5509d28d28668a64ee8bfaa2768e04b8faa7cabd062431607a2",
    "simhash": "1:0421e138e009eaf8",
    "word_count": 1033
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:15.337318+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Russell F. Schoeneich, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tolson, J.\nOn October 16, 1959, claimant filed his complaint seeking an award in the amount of $25,000.00 for the loss of the distal phalanx of the second finger of his left hand.\nClaimant alleges that the State was negligent in not providing proper safeguards on the punch press, which he operated while an inmate at the Joliet Branch of the Illinois State Penitentiary.\nThe case was heard by Commissioner George W. Presbrey, and his report is set forth as follows:\n\u201cThe evidence was heard in the above entitled cause on February 23, 1962. John R. Snively represented claimant, Russell F. Schoeneich, and Edward Finnegan, Assistant Attorney General, represented respondent, State of Illinois. This is a claim by Russell F. Schoeneich, an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary, against the State of Illinois to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while an inmate in the Illinois State Penitentiary.\n\u201cOn March 23, 1959, while claimant was operating a punch press, his hand was caught in the die of the machine, crushing the distal phalanx of the middle finger of the left hand. The first joint or distal phalanx of said middle finger was amputated.\n\u201cThe facts in this case are not particularly unique. There is a difference of opinion between claimant and respondent as to whether claimant was assigned to work at the metal shop, or whether he was directed to do so by the prison authorities. Respondent contends that work at the metal shop is sought by the prisoners, and they are only assigned to the work in said shop upon receiving a request by the inmate in question. A worker in the metal shop is paid approximately $12.00 per month. Claimant contends that he was directed to work in the metal shop.\n\u201cIt appears that claimant was first assigned to work in the power house. He was subsequently transferred to the metal shop, and was assigned to operate a grinder, and thereafter a punch press. The claimant was familiar with the operation of a punch press. He had operated the punch press in question for a period in excess of nine months prior to the date of the alleged accident.\n\u201cThe machine in question is operated by a foot pedal. Claimant contends that the punch press \u2018double punched\u2019. In other words, the machine punched the first time when the pedal was operated by claimant, and again operated without the foot pedal being depressed. Claimant stated the machine had never double punched before.\n\u201cClinton Vaught, Superintendent of the Sheet Metal Shop, testified that a prisoner is first placed on a non-pay job, and then goes to a waiting list. Subsequently, when their turn comes, they are placed on the pay job. They are usually given some choice as to the type of job upon which they are placed.\n\u201cIt appears that the machine in question was approximately five years old at the time of the accident. He testified that they had had no trouble with this machine prior to or subsequent to said accident. The foot lever is covered, so that a person other than the operator could not trip said machine. The operator of the machine must slip his foot into a covered slot to operate the machine. The only safety device on the machine was the trip lever in question.\n\u201cClaimant contends that the Health and Safety Rules of the State of Illinois, as adopted by the Industrial Commission, provide that toggles, or a device to pull back the arms of the operator when the machine is tripped, should have been installed on the machine in question. The machine in question did not have such a device. On cross-examination, Vaught stated that the only repairs to the machine were made approximately one year ago.\n\u201cIf the press double punched, then respondent could be liable for the injuries, for an inference of negligence would certainly be present on the part of respondent. If, however, the machine in question did not double punch, but the plaintiff had merely negligently caught his hand in the die of said machine, then claimant would be guilty of contributory negligence, and would not be entitled to recover.\n\u201cThere is evidence in the record that respondent installed a different type of switch on the machine after the accident. Vaught testified this was merely for additional protection, and that there has (never been any trouble with the machine double punching. Claimant had operated the machine for a period of approximately nine months prior to the accident. There is no evidence in the record that there had ever been any trouble with the machine in question oh a prior occasion.\n\u201cIn the opinion of this Commissioner, it appears that claimant inadvertently stepped on the operating lever without removing his hand completely from the hazardous area. He would, therefore, be guilty of contributory negligence.\n\u201cThere is some testimony that the Health and Safety Act, passed by the Industrial Commission, required that a device be placed on a punch press, which would remove the operator\u2019s arm when the machine is in operation. This machine did not have such a device. There is no evidence, however, that the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of claimant\u2019s injuries.\n\u201cIt would, therefore, appear that claimant has failed to affirmatively prove that respondent was guilty of negligence, and his claim should be denied.\u201d\nFrom a review of the report and the evidence, it appears that the machine was in proper working order, and that claimant was familiar with the machine from previous use. Since the only way that the machine can be operated is by means of placing the foot into a covered slot, which action thereby activates the machine, it would appear that claimant tripped the press without first removing his hand.\nClaimant has the burden of proving that he was free from contributory negligence. The record does not support this proof.\nAn award is, therefore, denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tolson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John R Shively, Attorney for Claimant.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General; Edward G. Finnegan, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 4887\nRussell F. Schoeneich, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 29, 1963.\nPetition of Claimant for Rehearing denied July 26, 1963.\nJohn R Shively, Attorney for Claimant.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General; Edward G. Finnegan, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0365-01",
  "first_page_order": 405,
  "last_page_order": 407
}