Frazier v. Mansfield Corr. Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Frazier v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2006-Ohio-7276.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO LEONARDO FRAZIER : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-09375-AD MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INST. : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On Frazier, an or about inmate March 28, incarcerated 2005, at plaintiff, defendant, Leonardo Mansfield Correctional Institution ( ManCI ), delivered his television set to the ManCI mail room to be mailed to an outside repair shop. Plaintiff pointed out the television set needed to be sent out to have a fuse replaced, a minor repair. {¶ 2} 2) The television set, originally purchased in 2000, was packed in a cardboard box by ManCI mailroom personnel and delivered to the United States Postal Services ( USPS ) to be mailed to the Institutional Television Service for the required repairs. The box holding the television set was filled with shredded paper for packing material utilized to protect the set during the forwarded shipping to the process. USPS, who The delivered Institutional Television Service. the Institutional letter that his Television television packed the package set was to the On or about April 18, 2005, Service had television informed sustained plaintiff severe damage by and Case No. 2005-09375-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION needed major repair. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff has asserted the severe damage to his television set was caused by negligence on the part of ManCI personnel in failing to properly pack the electronic device to safely withstand the rigors of shipping. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $248.10, the replacement cost of a television set, plus associated expenses. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant denied plaintiff s property was improperly packaged for safe shipping. Although photographic evidence depicts damage to the package containing the television set, defendant denied the package was damaged while under ManCI control. Defendant suggested the package and television set were damaged after the package had been received by the USPS for mailing. Defendant denied any responsibility for plaintiff s damage. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 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. {¶ 6} 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. Case No. 2005-09375-AD -2- {¶ 7} 3) Plaintiff MEMORANDUM DECISION 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. {¶ 8} 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. {¶ 9} 5) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, he sustained any loss negligence on the part of defendant. as a result of any Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD. {¶ 10} 6) Plaintiff has connection between any damage breach a owed by of duty inmate property. failed to his defendant to show television in regard any set to causal and any protecting Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD; Melson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2003-04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615. {¶ 11} 7) Defendant is not responsible for an item once it is shipped out of the facility. responsibility of Rehabilitation and the mail carrier. Correction C.R.C. (1989), 89-12968-AD. At that point, the item is the (1986), Owens v. Department 85-08061-AD; Gilbert of v. Case No. 2005-09375-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO LEONARDO FRAZIER : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-09375-AD MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INST. : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently defendant. set forth herewith, in the judgment is memorandum rendered decision in filed favor Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. of 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: Leonardo Frazier, #376-710 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North For Defendant Case No. 2005-09375-AD Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 8/31 Filed 9/19/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 6/5/07 -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION
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.
