Fulk v. Richland Correctional Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Fulk v. Richland Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-7088.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MICHAEL FULK : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-05272-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Michael Fulk, an inmate, alleged that on some unspecified date in September, 2003, his television set and typewriter were vandalized by an unidentified inmate. Plaintiff also claimed his radio was stolen by an unidentified inmate on some unspecified day in September, 2003. incidents, plaintiff was At the time of these alleged incarcerated at defendant, Richland Correctional Institution ( RiCI ). {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $694.39, the estimated total replacement cost of the alleged damaged and stolen electronic devices. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to establish his property items were damaged or stolen. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 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. [Cite as Fulk v. Richland Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-7088.] {¶ 6} 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. {¶ 7} 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. {¶ 8} 4) Allegations that a theft or damage insufficient to show defendant s negligence. occurred is Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-07091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 84-02425. defendant breached a duty or ordinary Plaintiff must show or reasonable care. Williams, supra. {¶ 9} 5) Defendant is not responsible for thefts or property damage 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. {¶ 10} 6) 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. {¶ 11} action, 7) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort 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 issues in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. 82. Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. Case No. 2005-05272-AD {¶ 12} 8) The -3- credibility MEMORANDUM DECISION of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to believe and disbelieve, all or any part of each witness s testimony. 176 Ohio St. 61. State v. Anthill (1964), The court does not find plaintiff s assertions particularly persuasive. {¶ 13} 9) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his property was stolen or damaged as a proximate result of any negligence on the part of defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD. [Cite as Fulk v. Richland Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-7088.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MICHAEL FULK : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-05272-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : 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: Michael Fulk, #R146-367 P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601-5500 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 12/2 Filed 12/7/05 Sent to S.C. reporter 1/9/06
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.
