Dawson v. Ohio Dept. of Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Dawson v. Ohio Dept. of Corr., 2006-Ohio-7246.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO LARRY DAWSON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01467-AD OHIO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On June 3, 2004, property owned by plaintiff, Larry Dawson, an inmate, was packed and inventoried by employees of defendant s preparation defendant s Trumbull for Correctional transferring Southern Ohio Institution plaintiff and Correctional his ( TCI ), property Facility in to ( SOCF ). Included in the property packed by TCI personnel was plaintiff s television set. {¶ 2} 2) On June 7, 2004, upon his plaintiff s property was again inventoried. arrival at SOCF, The SOCF pack-up officer noted on plaintiff s property inventory sheet that his television set was being placed in long term storage due to the fact the set was missing a volume control button. officer wrote, TV altered button missing. The pack-up Plaintiff maintained his television set was not damaged in any way when the device was handed over to TCI personnel for transport to SOCF. Plaintiff suggested the television was either damaged in transport to SOCF or after it arrived there. {¶ 3} 3) Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking Case No. 2006-01467-AD to recover -2- $125.00, MEMORANDUM DECISION the complete cost of a replacement television set, plus $25.00 for filing fee reimbursement. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant Defendant contended evidence to prove denied any plaintiff his liability failed television to was in this produce damaged matter. sufficient while in the custody and control of defendant s employees. {¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff responded to defendant s investigation report by insisting his television was damaged by defendant. Plaintiff argued if his set was damaged when he delivered it to TCI personnel, the set would have been withheld and not forwarded to SOCF. 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 Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. negligence. Case No. 2006-01467-AD {¶ 9} 4) -2- Plaintiff must MEMORANDUM DECISION 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} 5) the Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of 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. {¶ 11} 6) Plaintiff as 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 protecting inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819AD; Melson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2003-04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615. Case No. 2006-01467-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO LARRY DAWSON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-0147-AD OHIO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS : 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: Larry Dawson, #242-802 P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant Case No. 2006-01467-AD RDK/laa 8/1 Filed 8/17/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/5/07 -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.
