Opinion
2020-00196AD
08-27-2020
CLIFFORD D. JACKSON, III Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/2/21
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶1} Clifford D. Jackson, III ("plaintiff"), an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Plaintiff related on April 9, 2018, when he was transferred from defendant's Mansfield Correctional Institution ("ManCI") to defendant's Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF"), defendant lost some of his property. Plaintiff claims that ODRC lost his keyboard and accessories, radio, typewriter, JP5 mini, television, headphones, and a food box.
{¶2} Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $954.53 for his lost items. Plaintiff was not required to submit the $25.00 filing fee with the complaint.
{¶3} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability for all of the items except the keyboard and the typewriter. Defendant submitted two of plaintiff's inmate property records, one from ManCI, before he was transferred, and one from SOCF dated April 10, 2018. These records were both signed by plaintiff. Defendant states that plaintiff indicated on these forms that he received all of his property except for the typewriter and keyboard, therefore ODRC is willing to settle for the depreciated value of those items.
{¶4} Plaintiff also asserted that his Amp'd television was damaged by SOCF personnel while it was in storage. Plaintiff claims Sgt. Felts could confirm the damage, and furthermore Sgt. King filed a theft/loss report concerning this damage. However, plaintiff did not provide a statement from Sgt. Felts to support his allegation or a copy of the theft/loss report.
{¶5} Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant's Investigation Report reasserting his claims.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶6} In order to prevail in a claim for negligence, 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 damages. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984).
{¶7} "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, 798 N.E.2d 1121, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.), citing Miller v. Paulson, 97 Ohio App.3d 217, 221, 646 N.E.2d 521 (10th Dist.1994); Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989).
{¶8} 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, 76-0356-AD (1979).
{¶9} This court, in Mullett v. Department of Correction, 76-0292-AD (1976), 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.
{¶10} "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." Robinson v. Trumbull Corr. Inst, Ct. of Cl. No. 2011-09268-AD, 2011-Ohio-7064, ¶ 7, citing Barnum v. Ohio State Univ. Hosps., 1976-0368-AD (1977).
{¶11} Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that defendant's conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 85-01546-AD (1985).
{¶12} 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, as to any essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc., 161 Ohio St. 82, 82-83, 118 N.E.2d 147 (1954).
{¶13} "When prison authorities obtain possession of an inmate's property, a bailment relationship arises between the correctional facility and the inmate. Buhrow v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 85-01562-AD (1985). 'A bailment is defined as a delivery of something * * * by one party to another, to be held according to the purpose or object of the delivery, and to be returned * * * when that purpose is accomplished.' (Footnotes omitted.) 8 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1978), 401, Bailments, Section 2." Bacote v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 61 Ohio Misc.2d 284, 286, 578 N.E.2d 565 (Ct. of Cl.1988).
{¶14} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), 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, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). The court finds both parties in this case to be credible, as plaintiff and defendant have offered very similar versions of the facts.
{¶15} Both plaintiff and defendant reported that ODRC staff misplaced plaintiff's property when he was transferred from ManCI to SOCF. Thus, a bailment relationship was created when defendant's agents took possession of plaintiff's property during the transfer. Plaintiff and defendant submitted the same Inmate Property Records which indicate which property was received by the plaintiff and which was not. When an inmate signs a receipt stating defendant packed all of his property and the inmate did not contest the fact of this receipt, he has failed to show the Department of Corrections was liable for the alleged property loss. Yocum v. Chillicothe Correctional Institution, 78-0142-AD (1978).
{¶16} Negligence of the part of the defendant has been shown in respect to the loss of the property subject to admission by defendant. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 76-0617-AD (1977); Stewart v. Ohio National Guard, 78-0342-AD (1979). This, along with the inmate property records, show that ODCR is liable for the loss of the keyboard and the typewriter. The only remaining issue is the value of plaintiffs property at the time it was lost.
{¶17} The standard measure of damages for personal property loss is market value. McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp., 67 Ohio Misc.2d 40, 644 N.E.2d 750 (Ct. of Cl. 1994).
{¶18} As trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable damages based on evidence presented. Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 61 Ohio Misc.2d 239, 577 N.E.2d 160 (Ct. of Cl. 1988).
{¶19} Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact. Litchfield v. Morris, 25 Ohio App.3d 42, 495 N.E.2d 462 (10th Dist. 1985). 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, 102 Ohio App.3d 782, 658 N.E.2d 31 (12th Dist. 1995).
{¶20} Upon review of plaintiffs certificates of ownership, this court has determined that plaintiffs keyboard and typewriter were approximately four years old and thus their value is subject to depreciation. The court has the authority to determine depreciation based on age of the property in question. See 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. The depreciated value of the keyboard is $209.16 and the depreciated value of the typewriter is $182.40.
{¶21} Thus, plaintiff is awarded $209.16 for the keyboard and $182.40 for the typewriter.
{¶22} However, plaintiff failed to meet this burden of proof with respect to damage to his television. While plaintiff contends Sgt. Felts could confirm the damage and Sgt. King filed a theft/loss report, plaintiff did not supply these items to the court. Accordingly, plaintiffs claim for damage to his television is denied.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶23} 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 $391.56. Court costs are assessed against defendant.