Coleman v. Cleveland State Univ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Coleman v. Cleveland State Univ., 2004-Ohio-2614.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CHARLES COLEMAN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-10805-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Defendant : ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On October 22, 2003, plaintiff, Charles Coleman, filed a complaint against defendant, Cleveland State University, alleging his van was damaged due to negligence on the part of defendant. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,056.78. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with his complaint; {¶3} 2) On December 19, 2003, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability. {¶4} THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: {¶5} 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; {¶6} 2) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $1,056.78, 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. {¶7} 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 $1,081.78, 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: Charles Coleman 27651 Mills Unit 1 Euclid, Ohio 44132 Plaintiff, Pro se Nancy J. Cribbs, Assistant Attorney General and University Legal Counsel Cleveland State University 2121 Euclid Avenue Rhodes Tower Room 1212 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For Defendant RDK/laa 4/28 Filed 5/5/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/24/04

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.