McCarroll v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as McCarroll v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2006-Ohio-192.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO EZEKIEL MCCARROLL, JR. : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-05027-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On or about March 14, 2004, plaintiff, Ezekiel McCarroll, Jr., an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Ohio State Penitentiary ( OSP ), was transferred to a segregation unit for disciplinary reasons. {¶ 2} 2) Incident to this transfer, plaintiff s personal property including his television set, was delivered into the custody and control of OSP personnel. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff related he regained possession of his television on or about January 18, 2005, and discovered the set was broken. Specifically, plaintiff maintained setting on the television was not working. the sound volume Plaintiff has alleged his television set was broken while under the care of OSP staff and he therefore filed this complaint seeking to recover $250.00 for property damage, plus $25.00 for filing fee reimbursement. Plaintiff did not submit a filing fee. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant denied plaintiff s television was damaged while under the control of OSP staff. Additionally, defendant has asserted plaintiff did not offer any evidence establishing the amount of the damages claimed. purchased in 1998. Plaintiff s television set was Defendant acknowledged the volume setting on the television does not function. Defendant denied the television was broken while in storage at OSP. {¶ 5} 5) In his response to defendant s investigation report, plaintiff insisted his television set was damaged while under the custody and control of OSP personnel. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence showing the precise amount of damages claimed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 6} 1) 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. {¶ 7} 2) 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. {¶ 8} 3) 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. {¶ 9} 4) 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. {¶ 10} of the 5) 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. {¶ 11} 6) Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between any damage to his television set and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard 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 EZEKIEL MCCARROLL, JR. : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-05027-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : 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: Ezekiel McCarroll, Jr., #291-155 878 Coitsville-Hubbard Road Youngstown, Ohio 44505 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel For Defendant Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43223 RDK/laa 12/1 Filed 1/5/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 1/20/06
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.
