NY DOC Found 50% Liable Prisoner’s Injuries from Collapsed Chair
NY DOC Found 50% Liable Prisoner’s Injuries from Collapsed Chair
A New York Court of Claims Judge has found a prisoner and the state department corrections each half responsible for injuries sustained by the prisoner when a chair collapsed while the prisoner was working in the prison's tailor shop.
In July of 2013, Eugene Emmers was working at Tailor Shop Two at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Upstate New York when the chair he was sitting on collapsed, crushing and breaking one of his fingers. The chair at which Emmers was assigned had plastic cone-shaped spools placed under its back two legs to Increase its height.
There was no dispute that Emmers was not responsible for the condition of the chair. But his supervisor testified that prisoners were required to stand while working. Emmers denied he was ever told he had to stand while he worked.
At trial on the issue of liability only, Emmers testified that there were broken pieces of the plastic spools on the ground after the accident. But Emmers also admitted that he used thread spools to further increase the height of his chair.
The court ruled that any reasonable prudent person should have known that use of the thread spools was inherently dangerous. The court also found that DOC staff at the tailor shop knew that plastic cone-shaped spools were commonly used on the chairs in the shop, and should have known they too were dangerous, and were negligent in allowing their continued use.
The court found each party 50% responsible for the accident and ordered a conference to set a trial date to determine damages.
See: Emmers v. The State of New York (NY Court of Claims), No. 2013-015-562, Claim No. 120047 (October 28, 2013).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Emmers v. The State of New York
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | (NY Court of Claims), No. 2013-015-562, Claim No. 120047 (October 28, 2013) |
| Level | Court of Claims |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |