Opinion
2020-00095AD
10-22-2020
JEREMIAH CRAYCRAFT Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/21/21
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶1} Jeremiah Craycraft ("plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Plaintiff asserted that on September 17, 2019, while housed at defendant's Lebanon Correctional Institution ("LECI"), he was sent to protective custody and not allowed to pack his property. Plaintiff asserted his property was not packed until September 20th allowing other inmates to steal it. Plaintiff stated the majority of his property was missing upon his release from custody. Plaintiff valued the lost items at $2,500.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} Defendant filed an Investigation Report acknowledging that plaintiffs property was not packed in a timely manner which resulted in the loss of property. ODRC stated it is willing to offer plaintiff damages in the amount of $1,464.25.
{¶3} Plaintiff filed a response to ODRC's Investigation Report stating he was in agreement with the offer made by ODRC. However, he inquired why his television set was not included in the items compensated. Plaintiff stated his television set was located in the possession of another inmate and subsequently destroyed.
{¶4} A review of communication from defendant's Lora Austin on December 8, 2019, revealed the following. "I can state that Sgt. Dupuis heard a conduct report on inmate Woods A734133 on 10-3-19 for a Rule 48 Stealing Ticket written by Sgt. Wallace stating you had listed this in advance as being stolen from you on 9-17-19, but yet Sgt. Dupuis has inmate Woods sign to destroy your TV. This is also unacceptable."
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
{¶5} Accordingly, plaintiffs television set should be included in his damage amount. However, a review of all information submitted by both plaintiff and defendant reveals the only information concerning the value of the set is a handwritten notation by plaintiff in the amount of $211.55. However, pursuant to the holdings in Weaver v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2011-10134AD (2012); Woodward v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2016-00267AD (2016); and Bonnette v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2017-00187AD, 2018-Ohio-1664, a television is a depreciable item. The court has the authority to determine depreciation based on the purchase price and age of the property in question. In the case at bar, plaintiffs handwritten statement does not satisfy this requirement since it is unclear when the set was purchased. Therefore, this court will not include the loss of his television in the damage amount.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶6} Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to the issue of property protection. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2000-10634-AD (2001); Tommy Lee Shafer v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2013-00418-AD (2014).
{¶7} Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby awarded $1,464.25 plus $25.00 for the filing fee, which may be reimbursed as compensable damages pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 62 Ohio Misc.2d 19, 587 N.E.2d 990 (Ct. of Cl. 1990).
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶8} 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 $1,489.25, which includes reimbursement of the $25.00 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant.