Calhoun v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Calhoun v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2006-Ohio-7252.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ROBERT CALHOUN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-03222-AD DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On September 1, 2005, plaintiff, Robert Calhoun, an inmate Facility, incarcerated suffered at defendant s property broken by a fellow inmate. damage when Oakwood his Correctional eyeglasses were Plaintiff related the broken glasses were handed over to defendant s employee, identified as Art West P.A., to determine if the glasses could be repaired. {¶ 2} 2) The broken eyeglasses were subsequently discarded by defendant s staff. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $316.00, the stated replacement cost of the glasses. Apparently, the eyeglasses were purchased by plaintiff s sister at sometime between September 19, 2003, when plaintiff was released on parole, and January 26, 2005, when plaintiff Plaintiff returned for contended incarceration defendant at should defendant s bear facility. liability for replacing his glasses since the property was discarded without any proper authorization. The filing fee was waived. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied any liability in this Defendant acknowledged discarding the broken glasses. matter. Defendant stated plaintiff, was offered an optometrist appointment for a new refraction and new state-issue glasses, but refused this offer. {¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed a response. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 1) An inmate plaintiff may recover the value of confiscated property destroyed by agents of defendant when those agents acted without property destruction. authority or right to carry out the Berg v. Belmont Correctional Institution (1998), 97-09261-AD {¶ 6} 2) Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to the loss of plaintiff s eyeglasses. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617-AD. {¶ 7} 3) As trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable damages based on evidence presented. Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 239. The eyeglasses were not only broken, but depreciable property. {¶ 8} 4) Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact. 42. Reasonable Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 25 Ohio App. 3d certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that degree of certainty of which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 102 Ohio App. 3d 782. {¶ 9} 5) The property is standard market measure value. of McDonald damages v. Ohio Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 40. for personal State Univ. Defendant is liable to plaintiff in the amount of $160.00, the determined value of the destroyed property. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ROBERT CALHOUN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-03222-AD DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently set forth herewith, in the judgment memorandum is plaintiff in the amount of $160.00. against defendant. The clerk shall rendered decision in filed favor of Court costs are assessed serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Robert Calhoun, #487-600 3200 N. West Street Lima, Ohio 45801 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 8/1 Filed 8/17/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/5/074/5/07
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.
