Tomblin v. London Correctional Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Tomblin v. London Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-4859.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JEFFERY L. TOMBLIN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-03431-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION LONDON CORRECTIONAL INST. Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Jeffrey L. Tomblin, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, London Correctional Institution (LoCI), alleged that on or about April 7, 2004, at approximately 11:30 p.m., his television set was damaged when some unidentified individual poured water into the back of the set destroying the internal workings. Further, plaintiff alleged his locker was broken into and his shoes and radio were stolen around the same time his television was damaged. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff contended his property items were damaged and stolen as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of LoCI personnel in failing to provide adequate protection. Plaintiff consequently filed this complaint seeking to recover $443.98, the estimated replacement cost of his claimed damaged and stolen property. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant argued plaintiff did not offer any evidence to prove his property was damaged or stolen as a result of any negligence on the part of LoCI staff. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 4} 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. {¶ 5} 2) Defendant is not responsible for acts committed by 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. {¶ 6} 3) The mere fact 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 defendant Facility breached a (1985), duty 84-02425. of Plaintiff ordinary or must reasonable show care. Williams, supra. {¶ 7} 4) Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion defendant s conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 8501546-AD. {¶ 8} 5) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff reasonable basis must for produce sustaining evidence his claim. which If furnishes his a evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, to any essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82. {¶ 9} 6) The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker 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} of the 7) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance evidence, he sustained any negligence on the part of defendant. loss as a result of any Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD. {¶ 11} 8) Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between any damage to his television set and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard to protecting inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD; Melson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2003-04236AD, 2003-Ohio-3615. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JEFFERY L. TOMBLIN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-03431-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION LONDON CORRECTIONAL INST. 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: Jeffery L. Tomblin, #253-861 P.O. Box 7010 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 8/11 Filed 8/30/05 Sent to S.C. reporter 9/14/05
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.
