Goldwire v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Goldwire v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2008-Ohio-6856.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us ROBERT GOLDWIRE Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS Defendant Case No. 2007-09445-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On June 4, 2007, plaintiff, Robert Goldwire, an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ( SOCF ), was transferred from the SOCF general population to a segregation unit. Plaintiff s personal property was inventoried, packed, and delivered into the custody of SOCF staff incident to his transfer. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff claimed that when he was released from segregation on June 26, 2007 and he regained possession of his property, he discovered several items were missing from the returned property. Plaintiff recalled the missing items included eleven compact discs, one set of ear buds, two sweatshirts, one pair of sweat pants, four pairs of undershorts, three sleeveless t-shirts, and three other t-shirts. Plaintiff related he was told the compact discs had been confiscated due to the fact he exceeded defendant s inmate possession limits for compact discs. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $259.85, the estimated replacement value for the alleged confiscated and missing property. Payment of the filing fee was waived. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant maintained that all compact discs were returned to plaintiff s possession by August 24, 2007. Defendant asserted the returned compact discs (eleven) were all intact. Defendant asserted all of plaintiff s property that was packed on June 4, 2007 was subsequently returned to plaintiff s possession. Defendant denied ever packing sweat pants, sweatshirts, ear buds, undershorts, or t-shirts. There is no record defendant ever received delivery of these items on or about June 4, 2007. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 4} 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. {¶ 5} 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. {¶ 6} 3) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If his evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any essential issues in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 53 O.O. 25, 118 N.E. 2d 147. {¶ 7} 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), 85-01546-AD. {¶ 8} 5) Plaintiff s failure to prove delivery of certain property items to defendant constitutes a failure to show imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part of defendant in respect to lost property. Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD. {¶ 9} 6) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his property was lost or stolen as a result of a negligent act or omission on the part of defendant. Merkle v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2001-03135AD. Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us ROBERT GOLDWIRE Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS Defendant Case No. 2007-09445-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Robert Goldwire, #437-452 St. Rt. 11271 Lucasville, Ohio 45699 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 9/23 Filed 10/1/08 Sent to S.C. reporter 12/19/08
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.
