Turner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Turner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2003-Ohio-3902.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTOR TURNER : Plaintiff : v. : DEPT. OF REHAB. AND CORR. : Defendant CASE NO. 2003-03981-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On March 24, 2003, plaintiff, Victor Turner, filed a complaint against defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, alleging defendant s staff lost his watch and jewelry items. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $75.00. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with his complaint; {¶3} 2) On June 12, 2003, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability and acknowledging plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $75.00; {¶4} 3) Plaintiff filed a response. {¶5} THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: {¶6} 1) I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, negligence by defendant has been shown. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617-AD; Stewart v. Ohio National Guard (1979), 78-0342-AD; {¶7} 2) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $75.00, plus the $25.00 filing fee, which may be reimbursed as compensable damages pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19. {¶8} 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 plaintiff in the amount of $100.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant. 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: Victor Turner, #274-899 P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699-0001 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 6/27 Filed 7/11/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 7/22/03 Plaintiff, Pro se 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.