Kasler v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Kasler v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility, 2003-Ohio-4651.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO SHAWN KASLER : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-03540-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On or about October 9, 2002, plaintiff, Shawn Kasler, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, was transferred from the facility s general population to an isolation unit. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff s personal property, which was stored in his cell, was packed and delivered into defendant s custody incident to the transfer. {¶3} 3) Plaintiff has alleged defendant failed to pack his radio and boots at the time he was sent to isolation. Plaintiff asserted the boots and radio were never located. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $92.99, the estimated value of the alleged lost property items. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with the complaint. {¶4} 4) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant denied receiving delivery of plaintiff s boots and radio. Defendant contended all of plaintiff s property that was stored in his cell was packed on October 9, 2002. {¶5} 5) On June 27, 2003, plaintiff submitted a response to defendant s investigation report. Plaintiff suggested his boots and radio were stolen from his cell. Plaintiff indicated his property was left in his cell for over four hours before any items were packed by defendant s personnel. Plaintiff insisted his boots and radio were either lost or stolen as a result of negligence on the part of defendant s staff. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶6} 1) 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} 2) 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} 3) 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), 85-01546AD. {¶9} 4) Plaintiff s failure to prove delivery of boots and a radio to defendant constitutes a failure to show imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part of defendant with respect to stolen or lost property. Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD. {¶10} 5) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his listed property was lost or stolen as a proximate result of any negligent conduct attributable to defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146AD. {¶11} 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. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 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: Shawn Kasler, #260-165 1728 State Route 728 Plaintiff, Pro se Lucasville, Ohio 45648 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK//DRB/laa 8/11 Filed 8/22/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 9/4/03 For Defendant
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.
