{
  "id": 206619,
  "name": "William Ciccia, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ciccia v. State",
  "decision_date": "1999-03-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 94-CC-1655",
  "first_page": "294",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 294"
    }
  ],
  "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": 316,
    "char_count": 4037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "sha256": "69904f60cb9b50d25c2e513d5c3c9ee538c90784801009e6a738e73baabe157d",
    "simhash": "1:b17cf0271a4f3dce",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:21.929612+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Ciccia, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nEpstein, J.\nClaimant William Ciccia, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (\u201cIDOC\u201d) brought this claim seeking $332 for damage to his television set allegedly caused by an electrical surge in the Dixon Correctional Center (\u201cDixon\u201d) on March 4,1993, which was allegedly caused by defective wiring. Claimant also claims lost interest.\nWe previously denied both parties\u2019 cross-motions for summary judgment (order of January 13, 1995), and remanded this case for an evidentiary hearing, which was ultimately held by our former Commissioner Johnson, who retired without submitting a report on this claim. The Court, accordingly, has reviewed in detail the record of this claim de novo.\nAnalysis\nClaimant alleges that his television set was damaged due to an electrical surge on March 4, 1993, which was essentially a recurrence of a similar problem that had occurred weeks earlier (on February 13, 1993). Although IDOC makes an effort to avoid culpability for the surge, we are constrained to find that IDOC\u2019s staff admission that there was an \u201celectrical malfunction\u201d in housing unit 29 at Dixon at 5:10 p.m. on March 4, 1993, and that that malfunction \u201ccaused electrical damage\u201d to appliances in a number of enumerated cells, including cell 55 of inmate Ciccia and his \u201cRCA 13 in. color T.V. model no. E13143HN serial no. 015425133\u201d (See, grievance report, March 5, 1993, Dixon C.C., concurred in by Odie Washington, Director, IDOC) to fairly end the argument over liability.\nWe reach out to observe, however, that this kind of electrical \u201csurge\u201d claim finds great disfavor in this Court\u2014 not only because the proximate cause element is ordinarily difficult to prove without expert testimony (which is usually unavailable to IDOC inmates), but also because injury that is truly caused by electrical \u201csurges\u201d is readily avoidable by the owner of the television set or other appliance by technology that is available and at costs that are hardly unreasonable: surge protectors. Such devices are so well known that the failure to have one protecting sensitive electronic appliances \u2014 particularly in institutional situations where numerous factors can, and foreseeably will, affect the electrical supply may well constitute negligence that will diminish or kill a claim.\nIn this case, that defense has not been raised by the Respondent, and the Court is not persuaded to raise it on our own motion, because the record reflects that IDOC personnel had confirmed that the March 4, 1993 \u201celectrical malfunction\u201d had caused damage to surge protectors in other inmates\u2019 cells. With that fact of record, and with the trial in this case long over, the Court will not consider this unraised and potentially disputed issue.\nThis brings us to the highly contested matter of damages in this case. Claimant has shown that his original purchase price for the television was $218.90, approximately 2 1/3 years before the incident (November 3, 1990). IDOC had taken the administrative position that the property should be depreciated at 20% per year, which Claimant had accepted, yielding a depreciated value of $116.02 by Claimant\u2019s calculation. The Court will adopt that depreciated value as a fair measure of the Claimant\u2019s loss.\nHowever, we must and will reject out of hand the Claimant\u2019s requests for interest, which amounts to prejudgment interest on a tort claim, which is not allowable in this Court, and we also flatly reject Claimant\u2019s claim for his time in pursuing this claim, which is equally noncompensable under the applicable laws.\nConclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court finds liability against the Respondent for damages to Claimants television. Claimant William Ciccia is awarded the sum of $116.02 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Epstein, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Ciccia, pro se.",
      "Jim Ryan, Attorney General (Serge J. Adam, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 94-CC-1655\nWilliam Ciccia, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 12, 1999.\nWilliam Ciccia, pro se.\nJim Ryan, Attorney General (Serge J. Adam, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0294-01",
  "first_page_order": 490,
  "last_page_order": 493
}