In re Ritch
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Fitch, 2003-Ohio-7080.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: ANTHONY F. RITCH : Case No. V2002-51931 ANTHONY F. RITCH : DECISION Applicant : Judge Joseph T. Clark : : : : : : : {¶1}This matter came on to be considered upon applicant s appeal from the July 2, 2003, order issued by the panel of commissioners. The panel s determination affirmed the final decision of the Attorney General, which denied applicant s claim for an award of reparations based upon the finding that applicant failed to qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct under the motor vehicle exception in R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). 2743.52(A) {¶2}R.C. places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Rios (1983), 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 8 OBR 63, 455 N.E.2d 1374. applicant The panel found, upon review of the evidence, that failed to present sufficient evidence to meet his burden. {¶3}The standard for reviewing claims that are appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61(C), which provides in pertinent part: If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the judge decides that the decision of the panel of commissioners is unreasonable or unlawful, the judge shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter judgment Case No. V2002-51931 on the claim. -1- DECISION The decision of the judge of the court of claims is final. {¶4}Neither applicant nor anyone on his behalf appeared for the hearing. {¶5}Applicant asserts that the panel s decision was unreasonable and unlawful because the driver of the car that struck the motorcycle he was riding on made an unexpected lefthand turn in front of the motorcycle. According to the police report contained in the claim file, the driver of the vehicle that struck the motorcycle fled the scene of the accident. Applicant contends that the offender was driving in a reckless manner, in violation of R.C. 2903.08. However, for applicant to establish his eligibility for an award of reparations pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(C)(1)(d) and 2903.08, it is necessary for him to show that the offender acted with an absence of care or an absolute perverse indifference to the safety of others. In re Calhoun (1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 159, quoting Roszman v. Sammett (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 94 at 98. {¶6}Upon review of the file in this matter, the court finds that the panel of commissioners was not arbitrary in finding that applicant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to an award of reparations. {¶7}Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is the court s opinion that the decision of the panel of commissioners was reasonable and lawful. decision of the Therefore, this court affirms the three-commissioner panel, applicant s claim. JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge and hereby denies Case No. V2002-51931 -1- DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: ANTHONY F. RITCH : Case No. V2002-51931 ANTHONY F. RITCH : ORDER Applicant : Judge Joseph T. Clark : : : : : : : Upon review of the evidence, the court finds the order of the panel of commissioners must be affirmed and applicant s appeal must be denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1) The order of July 2, 2003, (Jr. Vol. 2250, Pages 87- 89) is approved, affirmed and adopted; 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for the State of Ohio; 3) Costs assumed by the reparations fund. JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge AMR/cmd A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Summit County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 11-14-2003 Jr. Vol. 2251, Pg. 177 To S.C. 12-24-2003
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.
