Camella v. Ohio Veterans Home
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Camella v. Ohio Veterans Home, 2006-Ohio-7258.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO FRANK CAMELLA, et al. : Plaintiffs : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01491-AD OHIO VETERANS HOME : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Frank defendant, Ohio Veterans Home. Camella, is a resident at On December 20, 2005, plaintiff, Antoinette Camella, the spouse of Frank Camella, made her daily visit to her husband at defendant s facility. Antoinette Camella stated that when she saw her husband on December 20, 2005, she noticed he was not wearing his eyeglasses. Antoinette Camella noted Frank Camella suffers from cognitive impairment and consequently, must rely on defendant s personnel for all his needs, including caring for his eyeglasses. {¶ 2} 2) Frank Camella s eyeglasses have not been found and consequently, plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking to recover $270.30, the cost of replacement eyewear. Plaintiffs have maintained defendant should bear liability for the loss of the eyeglasses. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant acknowledged having a legal and moral obligation to take reasonable measures to safeguard the personal property of its residents. in this matter. However, defendant denied liability Defendant contended it is not charged with a duty to watch over resident s property constantly on a twentyfour hour basis. discarded his Defendant suggested Frank Camella may have glasses while experiencing confusion glasses could have been taken by another resident. or that Furthermore, defendant provided a copy of its resident contract signed and entered into by both plaintiffs. Under no circumstances will This contract clearly states: the Home (defendant) accept liability for personal property left in the possession of the resident. Both plaintiffs agreed to this term contained in the contract. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 4} Defendant is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect personal property delivered into its possession. Leech v. Ohio State University Hospital (1989), 89-07875-AD; Ahmed v. Ohio State Hospital (1999), 97-10812-AD. However, plaintiffs have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. {¶ 5} Although strict rules of evidence do not apply in administrative determinations, plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. Underwood Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 84-04053-AD. v. Dept. of It is the duty of a party on whom the burden of proof rests to produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining their claim. If the evidence so produced furnishes only a basis for a choice, among different possibilities as to any issue in the case, they fail to sustain such burden. (paragraph three of the syllabus in Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, approved and followed.) Kata v. Second National Bank of Warren (1971), 26 Ohio St. 2d 210, Syllabus 2. {¶ 6} Plaintiffs have failed to submit any evidence to show defendant received delivery on December 20, 2005, of a pair of eyeglasses owned by delivery constitutes bailment duty Frank property. on Camella. failure the part to of show This failure imposition defendant in of respect to prove a legal to lost Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD. Consequently, plaintiffs claim is denied. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO FRANK CAMELLA, et al. : Plaintiffs : v. : CASE NO. 2006-01491-AD OHIO VETERANS HOME : 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: Frank Camella Antoinette Camella 4612 Venice Hts. Blvd. #156 Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Plaintiffs, Pro se Gregory J. Kowalski Chief Legal Counsel Ohio Veterans Home Agency 3416 Columbus Avenue For Defendant Sandusky, Ohio RDK/laa 8/22 Filed 9/6/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 44870 4/13/07
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.
