Parmer v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Parmer v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
    2011-Ohio-2888
    .]
    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
    MATTHEW J. PARMER
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-08781-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    {¶ 1} 1)         Plaintiff, Matthew J. Parmer, an inmate under the custody of
    defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), filed this action
    contending his guitar was damaged while under the control of DRC personnel when his
    property was transported on or about March 5, 2010 from the Marion Correctional
    Institution to the Dayton Correctional Institution. Plaintiff requested damages in the
    amount of $250.00, the stated replacement value of his guitar. The filing fee was paid.
    {¶ 2} 2)         Defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability for the
    property loss and acknowledging plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $250.00.
    {¶ 3} 3)         Plaintiff filed a response expressing his agreement with defendant’s
    investigation report in regard to damages. Plaintiff also requested reimbursement of the
    $25.00 filing fee cost along with his damage claim.
    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 an 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
    ; and Mussivand v.
    David (1989), 
    45 Ohio St. 3d 314
    , 318, 
    544 N.E. 2d 265
    .
    {¶ 6} 3)      This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-
    AD, held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without
    fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make “reasonable
    attempts to protect, or recover” such property.
    {¶ 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)      Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to
    the issue protecting plaintiff’s property after he was transferred in March 2010. Billups
    v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2000-10634-AD. Plaintiff has
    offered sufficient proof to establish his property was damaged while under the control of
    defendant’s personnel. Ward v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2009-
    09043-AD, 
    2010-Ohio-4955
    .
    {¶ 9} 6)      Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $250.00, plus the
    $25.00 filing fee, which may be awarded as costs pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey
    v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 
    62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19
    , 
    587 N.E. 2d 990
    .
    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
    MATTHEW J. PARMER
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-08781-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 $275.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are
    assessed against defendant.
    DANIEL R. BORCHERT
    Deputy Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Matthew J. Parmer, #A557-849                Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel
    4104 Germantown Pike                        Department of Rehabilitation
    Dayton, Ohio 45417                          and Correction
    770 West Broad Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43222
    RDK/laa
    3/9
    Filed 3/17/11
    Sent to S.C. reporter 6/9/11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-08781-AD

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 3/17/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014