Case No. 2003-02055-AD.Court of Claims of Ohio.
May 1, 2003.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶ 1} 1) On some unspecified date, plaintiff, Douglas G. Zalewski, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Southeastern Correctional Institution, was transferred from the institution’s I-Dormitory to a housing area designated as Unit H-1.
{¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff’s personal property was delivered into defendant’s custody incident to his transfer. The delivered property was stored in the institution’s property vault under the care of defendant’s personnel.
{¶ 3} 3) At some unspecified time, an inmate identified as Hammons #391-081, was permitted to enter defendant’s property vault and steal a laundry bag containing plaintiff’s property items.
{¶ 4} 4) Upon discovering plaintiff’s property had been stolen, defendant’s staff conducted a search and subsequently recovered some, but not all, of the stolen articles.
{¶ 5} 5) Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $75.00, the estimated value of the unrecovered stolen property. Plaintiff also seeks damages of an additional $25.00, representing a claim for filing fee reimbursement.
{¶ 6} 6) Defendant acknowledged plaintiff’s property was stolen while under the control of institution staff. However, defendant denied any liability in this matter based on the argument plaintiff’s property was stolen under circumstances where defendant’s personnel were without fault or did not fail to exercise due care to protect the property. The court disagrees with defendant’s position concerning excuse and lack of liability.
{¶ 7} 7) Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant’s investigation report. Plaintiff asserts defendant is responsible for the loss of his property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 8} 1) 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.
{¶ 9} 2) 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} 3) 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.
{¶ 11} 4) Negligence has been shown in respect to the theft and loss of plaintiff’s property. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617-AD.
{¶ 12} 5) Defendant is liable to plaintiff in the amount of 475.00, plus the $25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable damages pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc.2d 19.
{¶ 13} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and adopting the memorandum decision concurrently herewith;
{¶ 14} IT IS ORDERED THAT:
{¶ 15} 1) Plaintiff’s claim is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff;
{¶ 16} 2) Defendant (Southeastern Correctional Institution) pay plaintiff (Douglas G. Zalewski) $100.00 and such interest as is allowed by law;
{¶ 17} 3) Court costs are assessed against defendant.
DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk
Douglas G. Zalewski, #401-400, plaintiff, Pro se.
Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, for defendant.