{
  "id": 5494549,
  "name": "Walter McIntyre, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "McIntyre v. State",
  "decision_date": "1987-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 82-CC-2210",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "87",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 78"
    }
  ],
  "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": 611,
    "char_count": 13032,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.887,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3151762902007028
    },
    "sha256": "9eb34fabb73ad9e1fe8afcfcb31b8dc9c0936a7da49eb6852d1bb736300d0493",
    "simhash": "1:6d55e730e9f5c1db",
    "word_count": 2377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:53.461892+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Walter McIntyre, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Raucci, J.\nThis is a claim brought by Claimant, Walter McIntyre, for personal injuries sustained by him on October 30, 1981, while he was a resident at Stateville Correctional Center. On the date in question, an electronic gate closed on Claimant\u2019s right arm severely injuring his right biceps.\nClaimant worked in the general kitchen as a utility man. At about 4:00 p.m. on the day in question, he was assigned to take a cart containing coffee and cookies to A and B dining rooms. He delivered what he had to deliver to A dining room and was on his way to B dining room when a guard snatched a package of cookies off the cart as Claimant and his cart passed in front of D house gate.\nThe gate to D house is an electronically operated gate constructed out of bars. Six feet of the gate is stationary and another six feet of the gate slides on a track past the stationary part of the gate. The gate is operated by employees in a control room watching cameras and taking voice commands from officers via walkie-talkie radios.\nWhen the guard took the cookies the gate was open and he walked through the gate. Whoever was operating the gate closed it after the guard went through.\nClaimant called after the guard to return whatever he had taken from the wagon.\n\u201cQ. What were you calling him for?\nA. To get whatever he took off the wagon back.\nQ. Why was it important to get those back?\nA. When I leave the kitchen and B called for us to bring food or coffee to the dining, when I left the kitchen if I don\u2019t show up to the dining room with whatever I left the kitchen with, I get disciplinary report wrote up on me, because inmates have been known to steal stuff out of the kitchen.\nI would have been accused of it, written up with a disciplinary report written up on me, and possibly put in segregation or C grade or whatever, and I was trying to avoid a ticket which was a disciplinary report.\nQ. So, you said you called this guard.\nHow did you call him and by what means?\nA. I called the officer.\nQ. Did you know him by name?\nA. No.\nQ. What else did you do to attract his attention?\nA. He stopped when he got halfway down the tunnel, because after you go through the gate, there is a tunnel before you get to C house which is about a block or so long.\nGot halfway down the tunnel and asked me what I wanted. I asked him to bring back what he took off the wagon, and he said I don\u2019t have nothing.\nI pointed to what he had in his hand.\nQ. Which arm did you use to point?\nA. Right arm.\nQ. Where was your arm when you started pointing to what he had?\nA. When I first pointed, he acted as if he couldn\u2019t see me which he could from as far as I could see, but I stick my hands through the bars and pointed directly at what he had, and that is when whoever was operating the gate . . . .\u201d (Tr. 8-10)\nIn other words, to better use his right hand to point at the object in the officer\u2019s hand, Claimant thrust his right arm through the stationary part of the gate. At that point an employee in the control room opened the gate and crushed Claimant\u2019s right arm in the area of his biceps.\nThe gate opened when it did because Officer Cook, by radio, called the control office to open the gate, without noticing that Claimant had his arm through the stationary portion.\nFirst we will consider the report filed by Officer Cook:\n\u201cI Officer Cook was going into D-House tunnel, Resident McIntyre was standing at the gate with his arm through the bars. Control center opened the gate and Resident McIntyre\u2019s arm smashed between the two gates.\nI signalled the control center to release Resident McIntyre\u2019s arm.\u201d (Resp. Ex. 1)\nNext we will consider his testimony:\n\u201cQ. When you approached the D gate at this particular time, was the gate open or closed?\nA. It was closed.\nQ. And where was Resident McIntyre with regard to the gate?\nA. He was standing on the stationary side of it.\nQ. What was he doing there?\nA. Talking.\nQ. Who was he talking to?\nA. I don\u2019t know who he was talking to. He was talking to someone standing in the tunnel.\nQ. Was that someone in the tunnel an officer or an inmate?\nA. I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m not sure.\nQ. Then what happened?\nA. Then I called over the radio to have them open the gate so I could go inside the tunnel.\nQ. And after you called the radio, did the gate begin to open?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Then what happened?\nA. Then I noticed his arm was through the gate, and it smashed, and so I could tell them to close it____\u201d (Tr. 51-52)\nWhen Officer Cook realized that Claimant\u2019s arm was caught in the gate, he began to wave his arm in front of the camera to get the attention of the operator in the control room. But waving to attract the attention of the operator was futile, because apparently no one was watching the screen. He had to call the operator over his radio in order to get the control room\u2019s attention to close the gate and release Claimant\u2019s arm. The fact that the gate had not opened far enough to permit anyone to go through but, in fact, wedged Claimant\u2019s arm between it and the stationary bars escaped the attention of those in the control room. A minute elapsed before an operator in the control room pressed a button to close the gate.\n\u201cQ. Between the time Mr. McIntyre\u2019s arm was first caught in the gate and the time you called the control center telling them to close the gate releasing Mr. McIntyre\u2019s arm approximately how much time passed, if you can recall?\nA. About a minute.\u201d (Tr. 53; also see Tr. 28).\nOn cross-examination Officer Cook elaborated further:\n\u201cBY MR. AIOSSA\nQ. Officer Cook, drawing your attention back to the statement exhibit when you read it, you said McIntyre\u2019s arm was smashed between the gate. The last sentence is actually I signalled the control center to close the gate to release his arm?\nA. I was waving in front of the camera.\nQ. You heard Mr. McIntyre testify he heard a guard call, was that you?\nA. I was standing behind him.\nQ. You had a walkie-talkie, then you are the one that called to the control center?\nA. Yes.\nQ. The control center didn\u2019t close the gate on its own\u2014\nMR. BUCKLEY: Objection to the part. of the question.\nBY MR. AIOSSA:\nQ. You signalled the control center to close that gate?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Thereby releasing Walter McIntyre\u2019s arm?\nA. Yes.\nQ. The control center didn\u2019t do it until you called, correct?\nA. No, they didn\u2019t know what was happening.\u201d (Tr. 53, 54)\n(Emphasis supplied.)\nHe summarized the matter as follows:\n\u201cQ. So, if the control center had seen what was going on, they could have closed the gate immediately, correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. But there was a lapse of time of approximately a minute, but they actually closed it?\nA. Yes.\nQ. And they didn\u2019t close it until you actually notified them, correct?\nA. Yes, I called them over the radio.\nQ. It wasn\u2019t until they got your radio communication until they actually closed it, correct?\nA. Yes.\u201d (Tr. 55)\nThe Claimant has proven negligence on the part of Respondent in the following particulars:\n1. Officer Cook was negligent in not noticing that Claimant\u2019s arm was thrust through the stationary part of the gate when he, Cook, called the control room by radio to open the gate. This appears in both Officer Cook\u2019s written statement and in his testimony.\n2. At all times during this incident, both on opening the gate at Cook\u2019s request, and on closing it at Cook\u2019s request, the control center relied exclusively on his radio calls. Either the lighting was so poor around the gate that it could not see the gate over the monitoring system, or the operator paid no attention to the screen.\nTwo of the employees in the control room gave written statements which would appear to be falsehoods. It should be remembered that Officer Cook testified that after Claimant\u2019s arm was caught in the gate he tried to attract the attention of the control room by waving in front of the camera. \u201cI was waving in front of the camera.\u201d But, the control center didn\u2019t close the gate until he called on the radio.\n\u201cQ. The control center didn\u2019t do it until you called, correct?\nA. No, they didn\u2019t know what was happening.\u201d\nThe statements of the two employees are reproduced below:\nFirst is that of Richard J. Watson:\n\u201cOn the above date and time I was given the sign from Officer Cook to open the tunnel gate D. However, Resident McIntyre was leaning on the gate as it was opening he also placed his arm through the gate and was caught between the moving gate.\u201d\n(Resp. Ex. 2)\nIf he saw this happen, why then did he not immediately release Claimant\u2019s arm? Why was Officer Cook\u2019s arm waving futilely? Why was the gate not released until Officer Cook\u2019s radio call? Why did Claimant have to endure almost a minute with his arm crushed in the gate?\nSecond is that of Katie Banks:\n\u201cOn the above date and time while I c/o Katie Banks was working the control center I saw Res. McIntyre appear to deliberately push his arm into the D gate just as it was opening up.\u201d (Resp. Ex. 3). (Also see her statement repeated in Resp. Ex. 4).\nIf she saw all of that happening why did she not tell c/o Watson to close the gate? Why the delay in getting Claimant\u2019s arm out of the gate?\nThere is dispute in the record as to what warning signs are posted at the gate.\nWarden DeRobertis, in a memorandum, stated that there were \u201cposted warnings to keep arms, hands, and legs clear of the gate bars.\u201d However, the Adjustment Committee summary signed by Captain Hall merely states that there are signs posted at gates \u201cstating not to tamper.\u201d (Corroborated by Claimant\u2019s testimony Tr. 19, 20).\nGiven the urgency Claimant felt about reclaiming the cookies taken by the unknown officer, we do not believe he was guilty of contributory negligence in thrusting his arm through the gate to better point to the package in the officer\u2019s hand. The greater negligence was that of Officer Cook and correctional officers Watson and Banks. At the most his negligence would have to be given a fractional valuation.\nClaimant ran unassisted to the dispensary a half block away. From there he was taken to the institution hospital. There, he was given X rays and sent back to the cellhouse.\n\u201cQ. And they didn\u2019t keep you up at the hospital at all?\nA. No, they told me it was soft tissue damage, and it would be okay. They gave me something for pain and sent me back to the cell.\u201d (Tr. 22).\nOn November 24, 1981, he was examined by an orthopedic surgeon in Joliet, Illinois, who found:\n\u201cThe patient struck his arm about the junction of the proximal or middle third of his right humerus of the anterior aspect with a door. He has no biceps. The biceps does not contract.\u201d (Cl. Ex. 2) Emphasis supplied.\nDr. Gerald J. Rabin, M.D., stated in his report:\n\u201cCoordination of the upper extremities are equal and normal. The patient has weakness of the whole right upper arm, from the shoulder down. Biceps and triceps reflexes are present and equal. The patient has hypesthesia of the right forearm, and to the right elbow down. There is an atrophy of the upper third of the right arm, tenderness of the right arm. The patient has a huge muscle defect of the right biceps, the short head of the medical biceps tendon, medial aspect. The patient has a whole marked deformity of the whole biceps muscle and its attachment. The inferior attachment is intact. The long head of the biceps are intact. The short head is absent, with marked deformity of the whole biceps. The patient has equal and normal motion of the left shoulder, both elbows and wrist joints. Motion of the right shoulder is limited, with marked weakness of the long head of the biceps as well as absence of the short head of the biceps. Strength and motion of the right hand, fingers, and thumb is limited.. . .\nDIAGNOSIS:\nA Defect of the upper third of the biceps in the region of the upper third of the biceps muscle, with an apparent tear of the short head of the biceps.\nCOMMENT:\nAt this time the patient is in need, I think of (sic) surgical repair should have been done of the short head of the biceps, and possibly the long head of the biceps at the time of the injury. At this time the patient could be helped by an intensive course of physiotherapy and exercises as well as possible surgical repair of the biceps muscles and their short and long heads.\u201d (Cl. Ex. 3) (Emphasis supplied.)\nThe Claimant was 24 years old at the time of the accident. The injury is permanent and will require surgery, although complete recovery is highly unlikely. Claimant\u2019s testimony indicates that he has attempted gainful employment since his release from State custody, but has been terminated because of his inability to perform physical tasks with his injured arm. Considering the entire record in this case, Claimant is entitled to an award of $60,000.00.\nIt is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that Claimant is awarded $60,000.00 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred Aiossa, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (John Buckley, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 82-CC-2210\nWalter McIntyre, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed June 19, 1987.\nFred Aiossa, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (John Buckley, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 176,
  "last_page_order": 185
}