SHOEMAKER, Judge.
On January 8, 1992, this matter came to trial before a referee of this court. On March 10, 1992, the referee issued a report wherein he recommended judgment for defendant. See Appendix.
Civ.R. 53 states that "[a] party may, within fourteen days of the filing of the report, serve and file written objections to the referee's report." Plaintiff has not filed an objection to said report.
Upon review of the record and the referee's report, it is the court's finding that the referee was correct in his analysis of the issues and application of the law. Accordingly, this court adopts the referee's report and recommendation as its own. Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. Court costs are absorbed by the court. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
Judgment for defendant.
FRED J. SHOEMAKER, J., retired, of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, sitting by assignment.
APPENDIX
WILLIAM L. HILLS, Referee.
Plaintiff Herman Williams filed this complaint on December 24, 1990, alleging that defendant was negligent in the maintenance of the floor located near a water fountain and ice maker/storage chest, causing him to slip and fall, resulting in injury to his foot and back while plaintiff was an inmate at the Correctional Reception Center ("CRC"), Orient, Ohio.
On January 8, 1992, this action came on for trial before the referee at CRC. The findings and conclusions herein are derived from documents and pleadings in the court file, evidence admitted at trial and the respective presentations by counsel for the defendant and the pro se plaintiff.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control of the defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. On September 1, 1990, plaintiff was walking at or near the fountain and ice machine located in the C-1 cell block of CRC when he slipped and fell on ice and/or water which had accumulated on the floor near the equipment.
Testimony from plaintiff and his witnesses indicated that it was not unusual for ice or water to be on the floor near the fountain and ice machine. Witnesses further stated that there was nothing to obstruct the view of the machine or floor in this area. Plaintiff stated that he didn't always look at the floor ahead of him while walking in the corridor and, if the porter had done his job, there would not have been an accumulation of water.
Plaintiff's complaint is construed to set forth a single cognizable action, which is one sounding in negligence. In a claim predicated on negligence, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant breached a duty owed to him and this breach proximately caused his injury. Strother v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 21 O.O.3d 177, 423 N.E.2d 467.
The duty of defendant is one of ordinary care in the furtherance of the custodian and prisoner relationship. Jenkins v. Krieger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 314, 21 O.O.3d 198, 423 N.E.2d 856. While cognizant of a "special relationship" between an inmate and his custodian, no higher standard of care is derived from this relationship. Scebbi v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (Mar. 21, 1989), Ct. of Cl. No. 87-09439, unreported. While having the duty of ordinary care, the state is not an insurer of an inmate's safety and would only be liable if the injury was reasonably foreseeable.
At the completion of plaintiff's case, defendant's counsel argued that plaintiff's case lacked merit because through plaintiff's own testimony, he was aware of water often being on the floor in that area, and failed to look for that condition at the time of the incident. Defendant then moved this court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(2), which states in pertinent part:
"Dismissal; non-injury action. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence." (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff responded to the motion of defendant by stating that he was a "ward of the state" and was owed food, clothing and reasonable care. Plaintiff further argued that he did not have a duty to protect himself and it was "not his job" to clean up spills of ice or water.
In a recent decision from the Tenth Appellate District Court, Judge Tyack stated in Hurst v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Dec. 24, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-911, unreported, 1991 WL 274883:
"The Court of Claims of Ohio is not meant to be merely an avenue for inmates to vent their spleens about whatever is wrong in their world. The Court of Claims is intended to provide an opportunity for persons with legitimate legal claims against the state of Ohio or one of its entities to litigate those claims, rather than be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity."
Having duly considered the case law, evidence, pleadings, arguments and testimony presented at trial, the court determined that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion. Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED.
So recommended.