{
  "id": 3045804,
  "name": "Walter Montgomery, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Montgomery v. State",
  "decision_date": "1991-10-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 88-CC-4515",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "257",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254"
    }
  ],
  "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": 338,
    "char_count": 5324,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.9,
    "sha256": "6d13c234ccf404e7c8c746fddc4eb493535951c61462360ece9fab282d3942ce",
    "simhash": "1:7e24e2564313178a",
    "word_count": 902
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:29.978535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Walter Montgomery, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nBurke, J.\nClaimant, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeks damages against the Respondent due to personal injuries allegedly sustained when Respondent\u2019s agent \u201crapped\u201d the bars with a \u201csteel bar\u201d to determine whether the bars were intact and not tampered with, and a piece of debris or dried paint struck Claimant\u2019s left eye causing him excruciating pain. Claimant was immediately treated by the Menard health care unit for a \u201csuperficial corneal abrasion.\u201d\nAt the hearing in this cause, Claimant testified that the incident occurred on July 26,1986, at about 6:30 p.m. Claimant was in his cell at the time and was waiting for ice to be passed out. Claimant alleged that he was eager for the ice \u201cto get there\u201d and was watching for the ice delivery when he noticed Respondent\u2019s agent coming from the opposite direction. Claimant\u2019s face and eyes \u201cmight have been at least a foot away\u201d from the bars as they were struck by Respondent\u2019s agent. Claimant\u2019s left side of his face was toward the bars and he could hear Respondent\u2019s agent rapping the bars of cells adjacent to his cell as he approached. This \u201crapping\u201d occurs practically every day. The bars of Claimant\u2019s cell were painted gray. Claimant contends that at the time his eye was struck, he grabbed his eye and hollered. Soon after-wards, Respondent\u2019s agent took Claimant to the health care unit. Claimant stated that he thought the injury was more serious than it turned out to be. At the time of the injury, Claimant thought \u201cmy eye was out.\u201d Claimant believed he was hit in the eye with paint from the bars that were struck because his injury was simultaneous with the striking of the bars on his cell. Claimant stated that at no time were the inmates warned to retreat to the back of their cells during the \u201crapping\u201d procedure which involved striking the cell bars with a steel bar 12 or 18 inches long. The striking of the steel bar against cell bars generates a loud sound. In the process of \u201crapping\u201d the cell bars, the bars are struck with such force that if the bar has been tampered with or sawed, the bar \u201cwill give some indication with the strike.\u201d\nClaimant\u2019s eye was examined at the Menard medical unit and treated with a tube of ointment and a patch over his eye. The pain began to subside later that night and was completely gone some later time far into the night of the incident. Claimant wore the patch about seven days. The medical department kept checking his eye. Claimant was sent to a specialist who recommended that he continue his eye drops. Claimant\u2019s vision was not impaired in any way from the injury nor does he anticipate the need for further medical treatment.\nClaimant was treated for approximately seven days and he has no complaint about the treatment he received. Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was struck in the left eye by a loose particle or chip which broke free from the impact between a steel bar wielded by Respondent\u2019s agent to the cell bars of his cell as part of a security routine to test whether or not cell bars were firmly secure. The cell bars are made of metal and covered by dried paint. Violently striking painted metal bars together in close physical proximity to a person\u2019s face is negligent. The Claimant was injured as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Respondent\u2019s agent. If Respondent\u2019s agent was unaware of the proximity of Claimant\u2019s face to the metal bars being violently struck, then the negligence lies in failing to see and observe that which a reasonably prudent person would have seen and observed if engaged in striking metal bars violently against each other in the physical proximity to other persons. It is reasonable to conclude that Respondent\u2019s agent was aware that there were prisoners in close proximity to. the area where Respondent\u2019s agent was striking metal bars against each other. It seems neither unreasonable nor even mildly difficult to observe how far the inmates are from the metal bars being struck violently together before the testing procedure is commenced. On the other hand, if Respondent\u2019s agent was aware of the close proximity of Claimant\u2019s face to the area where the bars would be violently struck, then the negligence lies in having performed the task without requiring the inmate to remove himself from the close proximity of the area where the bars were being tested.\nAlthough no permanent injury has been proven, or even alleged, there is no dispute that Claimant suffered the onset of considerable pain over what was thankfully a brief period of time. Thereafter, Claimant treated the corneal abrasion which he sustained for approximately one week. There are no special damages in this case.\nTaking into account the nature, extent and duration of the injury, and the pain and suffering occasioned by the Claimant as a result of the injury sustained, that Claimant be awarded the sum of $350.00.\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimant be awarded the sum of $350.00 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Burke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter Montgomery, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Terry Rock and Phillip McQuillan, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 88-CC-4515\nWalter Montgomery, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed October 21, 1991.\nWalter Montgomery, pro se, for Claimant.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General (Terry Rock and Phillip McQuillan, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 365
}