Knapp v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Knapp v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2005-Ohio-3211.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JAMES KNAPP : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-01285-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, James Knapp, an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Pickaway Correctional Institution ( PCI ), has alleged that on October 22, 2004, his locker box was broken into and his boots, cassette player, and cassette tape were stolen. {¶ 2} 2) On October 25, 2004, plaintiff reported the theft to PCI personnel. An investigation was conducted. property items could not be located. The alleged stolen PCI personnel could not find evidence to support plaintiff s claim regarding a theft loss. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $116.91, the total replacement value of his alleged stolen property, which he asserts was stolen as a direct result of defendant s negligence in failing to provide adequate protection. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant contended plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish his property was stolen as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of PCI staff. {¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff filed a response. Plaintiff insisted his property items were stolen as a result of defendant s negligence in facilitating theft. {¶ 6} 6) Defendant filed a document captioned Plaintiff s Response To Investigation Report. Reply To There are no procedural mechanisms available under statute or local rules to accept this type of filing. Therefore, the document is regarded as an improper filing and is stricken. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 7} 1) The mere fact if proven that a theft occurred is insufficient to show defendant s negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-07091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 84-02425-AD. Plaintiff must show defendant breached a duty or ordinary or reasonable care. Williams, supra. {¶ 8} 2) Defendant is not responsible for actions of other inmates unless an agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Walker v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD. {¶ 9} 3) The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker box and lock to secure valuables constitutes prima facie evidence of defendant discharging its duty of reasonable care. Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02635-AD. {¶ 10} 4)This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-AD, held that the 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. {¶ 11} 5)Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, he suffered any loss as a result of a negligent act or omission on the part of defendant. Merkle v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2001-03135-AD. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JAMES KNAPP : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-01285-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 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 defendant. are assessed against plaintiff. Court costs The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: James Knapp, #R144-009 P.O. Box 740 London, Ohio 43140-0740 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 5/13 Filed 6/1/05 Sent to S.C. reporter 6/24/05
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
