Ossman v. Pickaway Corr. Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Ossman v. Pickaway Corr. Inst., 2006-Ohio-7240.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JEFFREY W. OSSMAN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02137-AD PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Jeffrey W. Ossman, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Pickaway Correctional Institution ( PCI ), has alleged that on October 15, 2005, his locker box was broken into and his headphones, cassette player, CD player, and accessories were stolen. {¶ 2} 2) On October 15, 2005, plaintiff reported the theft to PCI personnel. An investigation was conducted. The alleged stolen property items could not be located. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $94.39, the total replacement value of his alleged stolen property, which he asserts was stolen as a direct result of defendant s protection. negligence in failing to provide adequate The filing fee was waived. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant contended plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish his property was stolen as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of PCI staff. {¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff filed a response. Plaintiff insisted his property items were stolen as a result of defendant s negligence in facilitating theft. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 6} 1) 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. {¶ 7} 2) 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. {¶ 8} 3) The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker and lock to secure valuables constitutes prima facie evidence of defendant discharging its duty of reasonable care. Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02635-AD. {¶ 9} 4) The mere fact that a theft occurred is insufficient to show defendant s Correctional defendant negligence. Facility breached a (1985), duty of Williams 84-02425. ordinary v. Southern Plaintiff or must reasonable Ohio show care. Williams, supra. {¶ 10} 5) Defendant is not responsible for thefts committed by inmates unless an agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD. Walker v. Southern {¶ 11} 6) 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. {¶ 12} 7) preponderance Plaintiff of the has evidence, failed his to property prove, was by a stolen or damaged as a proximate result of any negligence on the part of defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD. of Rehabilitation and IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JEFFREY W. OSSMAN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02137-AD PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : 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: Jeffrey W. Ossman, #448-079 P.O. Box 209 Orient, Ohio 43146 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 7/20 Filed 8/4/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/5/07
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.
