578 N.E.2d 895
No. 87-11573-AD.Court of Claims of Ohio.
Decided November 9, 1988.
Page 294
James Gaiter, pro se.
George W. Wilson, Director, Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, for defendant.
RUSSELL LEACH, Judge.
On September 16, 1988, the deputy clerk filed his findings and legal conclusions in this matter, wherein he found defendant was liable to plaintiff in the amount of $10. On October 13, 1988, plaintiff filed a motion for court review pursuant to R.C. 2743.10(D) and C.C.R. 6(H).
The record indicates that the defendant admitted liability and the deputy clerk correctly concluded that a bailment relationship arose between the correctional facility and the plaintiff, an inmate.
On the authority of Edgerson v. Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
(1977), Ct. of Claims No. 77-0169, unreported, the deputy clerk limited the damages to the aforesaid amount, which was based on the defendant’s list of approved items for sundry packages. Upon review, the court does not agree that defendant, by regulation, can establish the value of property never in the possession of an inmate. In fact, the applicable regulation does not purport to establish the value of items in the possession of inmates. If, for example, an inmate had possession of a $5,000 medal, he may well be in violation of department regulations, but the medal would still have a value of $5,000. Perhaps his possession of the medal, knowing that he is permitted to possess medals worth $10 or less might be used as evidence against him, but the court doubts
Page 295
the soundness of Edgerson in this regard. Therefore, the court finds that the deputy clerk erred in applying Edgerson in the present situation where the inmate never gained possession of the item.
Having determined that the value of the missing property is not in the amount awarded, the court must determine its true value. Defendant has presented no evidence as to its true value and plaintiff, who is competent to testify to the value of his property, indicates the value of said item to be $309.85. Defendant has presented no evidence negating the value placed upon the property by plaintiff. The court finds, therefore, that plaintiff has met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and finds that he is entitled to a judgment in the amount of $309.85.
In view of the above, the decision of the deputy clerk is hereby REVERSED and judgment is rendered for plaintiff in the amount of $309.85.
Judgment accordingly.
RUSSELL LEACH, J., retired, of the Franklin County Municipal Court, sitting by assignment.