Hancock v. Ohio State Penitentiary , 2010 Ohio 6685 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Hancock v. Ohio State Penitentiary, 
    2010-Ohio-6685
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    CHRISTOPHER L. HANCOCK
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-07504-AD
    Clerk Miles C. Durfey
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    {¶ 1} 1)       Plaintiff, Christopher L. Hancock, an inmate incarcerated at
    defendant, Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), filed this action alleging that a gold cross and
    chain intended for him was lost as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of OSP
    mailroom personnel in handling mail delivered by the United State Postal Service
    (USPS). Plaintiff related that his grandmother purchased a gold cross and chain and
    arranged for the seller to mail the item through the USPS to OSP where it was received
    on February 16, 2010.           Plaintiff further related that the described jewelry item was
    insured and when it was received at OSP a mailroom employee identified as “Officer
    Stradrick” signed for the necklace and cross pendant on February 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
    Plaintiff claimed that the gold chain with attached cross was never forwarded to his
    possession after it was received at the OSP mailroom. Plaintiff seeks damage recovery
    in the amount of $433.01, the total stated purchase price of the jewelry, plus insurance
    cost. Plaintiff submitted documentation confirming his damage claim amount. Plaintiff
    submitted documentation from the USPS confirming a parcel addressed to him was
    received at the OSP mailroom and delivered to OSP personnel. The filing fee was paid.
    {¶ 2} 2)    Defendant acknowledged that OSP personnel picked up mail for
    inmates at the local post office on February 16, 2010. Defendant explained that the
    procedure involved for mail pick up advising that “post office staff brought out the bin of
    mail which was loaded in a vehicle and transported to” OSP. Defendant maintained that
    when the mail transported from the post office to OSP was sorted, “there was no
    necklace or cross located in the incoming mail.”         Defendant noted that the OSP
    employee who sorted the mail denied a cross and chain intended for plaintiff was
    among the mail sorted on February 16, 2010. The claim file is devoid of any statement
    of any type from the OSP employee who handled incoming inmate mail on February 16,
    2010. Defendant did not identify the OSP employee who sorted mail on February 16,
    2010. Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove
    his cross and chain jewelry item was lost or stolen while under the control of OSP
    personnel.   Defendant asserted that evidence is inconclusive to establish whether
    plaintiff’s jewelry was lost or stolen while under the control of the USPS or OSP.
    {¶ 3} 3)    Plaintiff filed a response insisting that his mailed jewelry item was lost
    or stolen while under the control of OSP staff. Plaintiff pointed out that his submitted
    documentation shows that “an OSP staff member did in fact sign for the necklace and
    cross.” Plaintiff asserted that he has produced sufficient evidence to prove his property
    item was lost or stolen while under the control of defendant. The trier of fact agrees.
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    {¶ 4} 1)    In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the
    evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that
    defendant’s breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company,
    Inc., 
    99 Ohio St. 3d 79
    , 
    2003-Ohio-2573
    ,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products,
    Inc. (1984), 
    15 Ohio St. 3d 75
    , 77, 15 OBR 179, 
    472 N.E. 2d 707
    .
    {¶ 5} 2)    “Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately
    caused an injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided by . . . the court . . .”
    Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 
    154 Ohio App. 3d 744
    , 
    2003-Ohio-5333
    ,¶41, citing
    Miller v. Paulson (1994), 
    97 Ohio App. 3d 217
    , 221, 
    646 N.E. 2d 521
    ; Mussivand v.
    David (1989), 
    45 Ohio St. 3d 314
    , 318, 
    544 N.E. 2d 265
    .
    {¶ 6} 3)    Although not strictly responsible for a prisoner’s property, defendant
    had at least the duty of using the same degree of care as it would use with its own
    property. Henderson v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1979), 76-0356-AD.
    {¶ 7} 4)     This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-AD,
    held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without
    fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make “reasonable
    attempts to protect, or recovery” such property.
    {¶ 8} 5)     Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
    evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by
    defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD.
    {¶ 9} 6)     Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for
    the conclusion defendant’s conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in
    bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985),
    85-01546-AD.
    {¶ 10} 7)   The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their
    testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 
    10 Ohio St. 2d 230
    , 39 O.O. 2d 366, 
    227 N.E. 2d 212
    , paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is
    free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill
    (1964), 
    176 Ohio St. 61
    , 26 O.O. 2d 366, 
    197 N.E. 2d 548
    . The court finds plaintiff’s
    assertions persuasive concerning the loss of his property. Conversely, the court does
    not find defendant’s assertions credible regarding its denial plaintiff’s property was
    delivered into the custody of OSP staff.
    {¶ 11} 8)   Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to
    the issue of property protection. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
    (2001), 2000-10634-AD. Consequently, defendant is liable to plaintiff for the damages
    claimed, $433.01, plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable
    costs pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
    Correction (1990), 
    62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19
    , 
    587 N.E. 2d 990
    .
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    CHRISTOPHER L. HANCOCK
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-07504-AD
    Clerk Miles C. Durfey
    ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
    DETERMINATION
    Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth
    in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor
    of plaintiff in the amount of $458.01, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are
    assessed against defendant.
    MILES C. DURFEY
    Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Christopher L. Hancock                     Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel
    878 Coitsville-Hubbard Road                Department of Rehabilitation
    Youngstown, Ohio 44505                     and Correction
    770 West Broad Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43222
    RDK/laa
    12/9
    Filed 12/29/10
    Sent to S.C. reporter 2/25/11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-07504-AD

Citation Numbers: 2010 Ohio 6685

Judges: Durfey

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014