[Cite as Riggins v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility, 2005-Ohio-6119.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
ANTHONY RIGGINS
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2005-07089-AD
:
MEMORANDUM DECISION
SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶ 1} 1) On or about February 23, 2005, plaintiff, Anthony
Riggins,
an
inmate
incarcerated
at
defendant,
Southern
Ohio
Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), was transferred to a segregation
unit.
Incident to this transfer, plaintiff’s personal property was
inventoried, packed, and delivered into defendant’s custody.
Upon
his release from segregation, plaintiff’s packed property items
were returned to his possession.
{¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff has alleged several items of his personal
property were lost while under defendant’s control.
Specifically,
plaintiff alleged his radio parts, seventy photographs, two bags of
coffee, eleven stamped envelopes, four packs of loose tobacco, one
handkerchief, four batteries, one hair grease, one brush, one bowl,
ten magazines, one tablet, two deodorants, 3 bars of soap, and
legal papers, letters and transcripts were missing.
Plaintiff
filed this complaint seeking to recover $188.59, the estimated
replacement value of his alleged missing property.
{¶ 3} 3)
Defendant has denied any liability in this matter.
Defendant asserted all property packed by SOCF staff on February
23, 2005, was returned to plaintiff’s possession.
Defendant denied
any of plaintiff’s property items were lost, stolen, or discarded
while under the control of SOCF personnel.
{¶ 4} 4)
Plaintiff filed a response insisting all property
claimed was either lost while under defendant’s control or thrown
away by defendant’s employees.
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.
{¶ 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)
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.
{¶ 9} 5)
action,
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,
as 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.
{¶ 10}
6) Plaintiff’s failure to prove delivery of certain
items of property to defendant constitutes a failure to show
imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part of defendant in
respect to lost property.
Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD.
{¶ 11}
7) The
credibility
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 or 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.
{¶ 12}
8) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, any additional items of his property were lost,
discarded or stolen as a proximate result of any negligent conduct
attributable
to
defendant.
Fitzgerald
v.
Department
of
Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD.
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
ANTHONY RIGGINS
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2005-07089-AD
:
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
:
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:
Anthony Riggins, #188-083
P.O. Box 45699
Lucasville, Ohio 45699
Plaintiff, Pro se
Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel
Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction
1050 Freeway Drive North
Columbus, Ohio 43229
For Defendant
RDK/laa
10/6
Filed 10/27/05
Sent to S.C. reporter
11/17/05
