Morris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2011 Ohio 7016 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Morris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
    2011-Ohio-7016
    .]
    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
    KENNETH MORRIS
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-02646-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    {¶1}    On October 21, 2010, plaintiff, Kenneth Morris, an inmate formerly
    incarcerated at defendant’s Hocking Correctional Facility (HCF) was transferred from
    the general population to a segregation unit at approximately 1:30 p.m.
    {¶2}    Plaintiff's personal property was packed and delivered into the custody of
    HCF staff incident to the transfer. Plaintiff alleges that when he was released from
    segregation, some of his property items were missing. Plaintiff listed the following items
    as missing: two pair of scissors ($2.40), one Sentry AM/FM cassette player ($20.95),
    one TV headphones splitter ($4.42), one RC cola ($.51), one toenail clipper ($1.02), and
    one fingernail clipper ($.77).
    {¶3}    Plaintiff asserted his property was lost or destroyed as a proximate result
    of negligence on the part of HCF personnel and he has consequently filed this
    complaint seeking damages in the amount of $30.07, the estimated replacement value
    of the property. Payment of the filing fee was waived.
    {¶4}    Plaintiff submitted an inmate property record dated October 21, 2010,
    which lists a Sentry cassette player and two headphones, but does not indicate that any
    scissors, cola, or nail clippers were located during the pack-up process.
    {¶5}    In the investigation report defendant admitted “liability for the loss of the
    cassette player and headphone splitter for a total of $25.37.” The defendant specifically
    denied liability for the other items listed by plaintiff.
    {¶6}    Plaintiff did not file a response.
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    {¶7}    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
    .
    {¶8} “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
    .
    {¶9} 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.
    {¶10}       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 recover” such property.
    {¶11}       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.
    {¶12}       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.
    {¶13}       In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must
    produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If his
    evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, to any
    essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v.
    Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 
    161 Ohio St. 82
    , 
    53 O.O. 25
    , 
    118 N.E. 2d 147
    .
    {¶14}     Plaintiff’s failure to prove delivery of the scissors, nail clippers and cola
    to defendant constitutes a failure to show imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part
    of defendant in respect to lost property. Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and
    Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD.
    {¶15}     Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to the
    issue of protecting plaintiff’s property after he was transferred. Billups v. Department of
    Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2000-10634-AD, jud.
    {¶16}     The standard measure of damages for personal property loss is market
    value. McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 
    67 Ohio Misc. 2d 40
    , 
    644 N.E. 2d 750
    .
    {¶17}     As trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable damages
    based on evidence presented. Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1988), 
    61 Ohio Misc. 2d 239
    , 
    577 N.E. 2d 160
    .
    {¶18}     Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact.
    Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 
    25 Ohio App. 3d 42
    , 25 OBR 115, 
    495 N.E. 2d 462
    .
    Reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that degree of
    certainty of which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement
    Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 
    102 Ohio App. 3d 782
    , 
    658 N.E. 2d 31
    .
    {¶19}     Upon review of all the evidence submitted, the court finds plaintiff has
    suffered damages in the amount of $25.37.
    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
    KENNETH MORRIS
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-02646-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    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 $25.37. Court costs are assessed against defendant.
    DANIEL R. BORCHERT
    Deputy Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Kenneth Morris, #348-177                   Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel
    16759 Snake Hollow Road                    Department of Rehabilitation
    P.O. Box 59                                and Correction
    Nelsonville, Ohio 45764                    770 West Broad Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43222
    10/20
    Filed 10/25/11
    Sent to S.C. reporter 3/13/12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-02646-AD

Citation Numbers: 2011 Ohio 7016

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 10/25/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014