Hunt v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction

90 Ohio Misc. 2d 42, 696 N.E.2d 674 · Ohio Court of Claims · 1997

Torts Assigned in 1 casebook

Case brief summary

Rule

To win a negligence case, someone must show the other side had a duty, broke it, and caused their injury. If the injured person was more than half at fault, they get nothing.

Facts

Lesa Hunt, a prisoner, got only brief training on a snowblower from an inexperienced guard. She reached into a clog not knowing the blades could still move, and it partially cut off three fingers.

Procedural history

Hunt sued the state prison agency in Ohio's Court of Claims. The judge first held a trial to decide fault, then a separate trial to decide how much money she should get.

Issue

Did the prison fail to use reasonable care in training and supervising Hunt on the snowblower, and if so, how much of the blame for her injury belongs to her instead of the prison?

Holding

The court found the prison negligent for giving inadequate safety training, but also found Hunt forty percent responsible for putting her hand in the machine, so her damages were reduced accordingly, resulting in an award of $10,800.

Reasoning

The court said the prison failed to properly warn Hunt that the blades could keep moving, but she also used poor judgment by reaching in. Both shared blame, with the prison more at fault.

Opinions

Majority (Strausbaugh): The prison breached its duty to properly train and warn the inmate about snowblower dangers, but the inmate was also forty percent at fault, reducing her award to $10,800.

Test yourself

Question 1 of 5

What machine was Hunt operating when she was injured?

4 more questions in the full brief →
Cold call

The professor turns to you.

What were the basic facts of Hunt's injury while operating the snowblower?
Try a cold call

In the full brief

The trap

On the exam

Other issues in this opinion

Unlock the full brief free