Case Information
*1
[Cite as
Howard v. Mansfield Correctional Inst.
,
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 JASON HOWARD
Plaintiff
v.
MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Defendant
Case No. 2009-09019-AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) On September 10, 2008, plaintiff, Jason Howard, an inmate
incarcerated at defendant, Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI), was transferred from the ManCI general population to a segregation unit. Plaintiff’s personal property was inventoried, packed, and delivered into the custody of ManCI staff incident to the September 10, 2008 transfer. Plaintiff related his property remained stored in the ManCI vault until March 9, 2009 when he was transferred from ManCI to the Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI). Plaintiff’s property was again inventoried incident to his transfer to TCI and the items were forwarded to that institution. On March 10, 2009, TCI staff also inventoried plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff submitted copies of all three property inventories, dated September 10, 2008, March 9, 2009, and March 10, 2009. 2) Plaintiff explained he briefly examined his property before he boarded
a bus for transport from ManCI to TCI and he informed ManCI employee Lt. Page that he was “missing a bag of property.” Plaintiff related he retrieved his property at TCI on March 10, 2009 and discovered multiple items were missing. Plaintiff contended the missing property items were left in the ManCI property vault when he was transferred *2 from that institution on March 9, 2009. Plaintiff maintained the following articles of property were lost while under the control of ManCI personnel: “1 Blue Blanket, 1 Pair Blue Shorts, 1 Sweat Shirt, 1 Sweat Pants, 2 Towels, 1 Pair House Shoes, 3 Pair of Socks, 3 T-Shirts, 1 Belt, 2 Pair Gloves, 1 Beard Trimmers, 1 Shampoo, 1 Conditioner, 1 Brush & Comb, 1 Pair Riddel White tennis shoes, Handballs, and 1 T.V. Remote.” Plaintiff contended defendant should bear liability for the loss of his property and he has consequently, filed this complaint seeking to recover $176.00, the stated replacement cost of the items. Payment of the filing fee was waived. 3) Plaintiff submitted copies of his three Inmate Property Records
compiled on September 10, 2008, March 9, 2010, and March 10, 2010. The September 10, 2008 inventory compiled at ManCI lists the following items relevant to this claim: one blanket, two pairs of gym shorts, two sweat shirts, one pair of sweat pants, three t- shirts, one personal belt, four towels, one pair of house shoes, three pairs of socks, two pairs of personal gloves, a shampoo, a conditioner, and brushes and combs. Beard trimmers, tennis shoes, handballs, and a t.v. remote control are not listed on the September 10, 2008 Inmate Property Record. The March 9, 2010 inventory compiled at ManCI and the March 10, 2010 inventory compiled at TCI do not list any of the items claimed in plaintiff’s complaint with the exception of one pair of gym shorts, one sweat shirt, and one towel. 4) Defendant denied any liability in this matter asserting plaintiff failed to
provide proof he actually owned any of the items claimed. Defendant stated, “[t]here is no proof that the items were lost due to negligence” on the part of ManCI staff. Defendant suggested plaintiff voluntarily discarded property to meet volume limitations for inmate property possession. 5) Plaintiff filed a response insisting he owned all the property claimed
and all items claimed were lost while under the control of ManCI personnel. Plaintiff specifically denied he discarded any property to satisfy volume limitations set by defendant. 5) Defendant submitted a copy of plaintiff’s Inmate Property Record
compiled by ManCI staff and dated August 13, 2008. This Inmate Property Record lists one pair of white Riddel gym shoes. Both plaintiff and defendant submitted copies of grievances plaintiff filed in regard to his property loss claim. In a grievance appeal *3 dated June 19, 2009, plaintiff asserted his gym shoes were packed on September 10, 2008, but were not listed by the packing officer due to the fact the officer listed the shoes on the Inmate Property Record as “Shoes/Work Boot” rather than “Shoes/Gym.” On the subsequent Inmate Property Records compiled on March 9, 2009 and March 10, 2009, there are no “Shoes/Work Boot” listed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶ 1}
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,
{¶ 2}
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
,
{¶ 3} 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. 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 recover” such property. 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. 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. 7) 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
*4
evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any
essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue.
Landon v.
Lee Motors, Inc.
(1954),
{¶ 8}
8) 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,
{¶ 9} 9) Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to the issue protecting plaintiff’s property after he was transferred to segregation on September 10, 2008. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2000-10634-AD. Plaintiff has offered sufficient proof to establish all property items claimed with the exception of a pair of handballs, beard trimmers, and a remote control were lost or stolen while under the control of ManCI staff. 10) The standard measure of damages for personal property loss is market
value.
McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp.
(1994),
destruction or loss based on market value is essentially indeterminable, a damage
determination may be based on the standard value of the property to the owner. This
determination considers such factors as value to the owner, original cost, replacement
cost, salvage value, and fair market value at the time of the loss.
Cooper v. Feeney
(1986),
based on evidence presented.
Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(1988), 61
Ohio Misc. 2d 239,
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
*5
certainty of which the nature of the case admits.
Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement
Sys. Of Ohio
(1995),
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 JASON HOWARD
Plaintiff
v.
MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Defendant
Case No. 2009-09019-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 $138.21. Court costs are assessed against defendant.
DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc:
Jason Howard, #470-060 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 5701 Burnett Road Department of Rehabilitation P.O. Box 901 and Correction Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 770 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43222 RDK/laa 5/13
Filed 6/8/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/1/10