Brigner v. Pickaway Correctional Inst. , 2010 Ohio 6687 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Brigner v. Pickaway Correctional Inst., 
    2010-Ohio-6687
    .]
    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
    STEVEN BRIGNER
    Plaintiff
    v.
    PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-07911-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    {¶ 1} 1)       Plaintiff, Steven Brigner, an inmate formerly incarcerated at
    defendant, Pickaway Correctional Institution (PCI), filed this action alleging several
    items of his personal property were lost on or about December 28, 2008 as a proximate
    cause of negligence on the part of PCI staff in handling his property. Plaintiff asserted
    his beard trimmers, valued at $23.74; headphones, valued at $18.73; blanket, valued at
    $25.00; eighteen compact discs, valued at $216.00; and compact disc carrying case,
    valued at $15.00 were lost by PCI staff. Plaintiff requested damages totaling $288.47.
    Plaintiff did not provided any evidence other than his own assertions to establish the
    value of his lost property. Payment of the filing fee was waived.
    {¶ 2} 2)       Defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability for the loss of
    plaintiff’s beard trimmers, headphones, blanket, compact disc carrying case, and eight
    compact discs. Defendant contended plaintiff’s damage recovery should be limited to
    $199.00.
    {¶ 3} 3)    Plaintiff filed a response requesting he receive damage recovery in
    the amount of $288.47. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to support the amount of
    his damage request. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to show he purchased all
    property items claimed.
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    {¶ 4} 1)    In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the
    evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that
    defendant’s breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company,
    Inc., 
    99 Ohio St. 3d 79
    , 
    2003-Ohio-2573
    ,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products,
    Inc. (1984), 
    15 Ohio St. 3d 75
    , 77, 15 OBR 179, 
    472 N.E. 2d 707
    .
    {¶ 5} 2)    “Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately
    caused injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided by . . . the court . . .” Pacher
    v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 
    154 Ohio App. 3d 744
    , 
    2003-Ohio-5333
    ,¶41, citing Miller v.
    Paulson (1994), 
    97 Ohio App. 3d 217
    , 221, 
    646 N.E. 2d 521
    ; Mussivand v. David
    (1989), 
    45 Ohio St. 3d 314
    , 318, 
    544 N.E. 2d 265
    .
    {¶ 6} 3)    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} 4)    Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to
    the issue of property protection. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
    (2001), 2000-10634-AD.
    {¶ 8} 5)    The standard measure of damages for personal property loss is
    market value. McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 
    67 Ohio Misc. 2d 40
    , 
    644 N.E. 2d 750
    .
    {¶ 9} 6)    In a situation where a damage assessment for personal property
    destruction based on market value is essentially indeterminable, a damage
    determination may be based on the standard value of the property to the owner. This
    determination considers such factors as value to the owner, original cost, replacement
    cost, salvage value, and fair market value at the time of the loss. Cooper v. Feeney
    (1986), 
    34 Ohio App. 3d 282
    , 
    518 N.E. 2d 46
    .
    {¶ 10} 7)   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
    , 
    577 N.E. 2d 160
    .
    {¶ 11} 8)   Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact.
    Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 
    25 Ohio App. 3d 42
    , 25 OBR 115, 
    495 N.E. 2d 462
    .
    Reasonable 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
    , 
    658 N.E. 2d 31
    .
    {¶ 12} 9)   Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $199.00.
    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
    STEVEN BRIGNER
    Plaintiff
    v.
    PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-07911-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 plaintiff in the amount of $199.00. Court costs are assessed against defendant.
    DANIEL R. BORCHERT
    Deputy Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Steven Brigner, #475-073                       Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel
    P.O. Box 45699                                 Department of Rehabilitation
    Lucasville, Ohio 45699                         and Correction
    770 West Broad Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43222
    RDK/laa
    12/6
    Filed 12/29/10
    Sent to S.C. reporter 2/25/11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-07911-AD

Citation Numbers: 2010 Ohio 6687

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014