Ross v. Mansfield Correctional Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Ross v. Mansfield Correctional Inst., 2004-Ohio-7086.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOHN E. ROSS : Plaintiff : v. : : MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION CASE NO. 2004-07719-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} defendant, 1) Plaintiff, John E. Ross, an inmate incarcerated at Mansfield Correctional Institution, asserted his television set, fan, and light bulbs were intentionally destroyed by his cellmate, Nickleberry on May 31, 2004. Additionally, plaintiff claimed his television cables, splitter, cassette tapes, tape cleaner, and nail clippers were stolen by inmate Nickleberry on May 31, 2004. {¶2} 2) Plaintiff has contended defendant is responsible for his damaged and stolen property. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $280.49 for property loss. Plaintiff paid the requisite material filing fee. {¶3} 3) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant asserted plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove his property was stolen by inmate Nickleberry. Defendant explained inmate Nickleberry s property was examined and he did not have any of plaintiff s property in his possession. Furthermore, defendant asserted it does not bear any responsibility for the destruction of plaintiff s property by a fellow inmate. 4) {¶4} Plaintiff filed a response October 12, 2004. Plaintiff insisted defendant is responsible for all his property loss claimed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1) {¶5} 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. 2) {¶6} Defendant is not responsible for acts committed by inmates unless an agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Walker v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD. 3) {¶7} to show The mere fact that a theft occurred is insufficient defendant s negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-07091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional defendant Facility breached a (1985), duty 84-02425. of ordinary Plaintiff or must reasonable show care. Williams, supra. 4) {¶8} 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. 5) {¶9} 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, 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 has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss and that his loss was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. {¶11} of the 7) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance evidence, he sustained any negligence on the part of defendant. loss as a result of any Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD. {¶12} 8) Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between the damage to his television set and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard to protecting inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOHN E. ROSS : Plaintiff : v. : : MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION CASE NO. 2004-07719-AD ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : 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: John E. Ross, #334-813 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 10/19 Filed 11/5/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 12/27/04 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.
