[Cite as Speakman v. London Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-3768.]

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

DAVID SPEAKMAN, JR. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

LONDON OHIO CORRECTIONAL INST. 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-10220-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, David Speakman, an inmate formerly incarcerated at defendant's 

London Correctional Institution (LCI), filed this action alleging that his CD player was 

lost or stolen as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of LCI staff in handling his 

property on or about December 13, 2009. Plaintiff recalled that he was transferred to 

segregation from the visiting room at LCI and that his personal property was packed 

and sent to storage incident to the transfer. Plaintiff further recalled that when he was 

released from segregation and regained possession of his property he discovered that 

his CD player was not among the returned property items. Plaintiff asserted that he “did 

all the proper paperwork within the prison first trying to resolve the issue.” In his 

complaint, plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $76.25, the stated replacement 

cost of his alleged missing property. Plaintiff submitted a copy of a title to a CD player 

issued on February 6, 2009. Plaintiff did not provide any documentation concerning the 

value of his alleged lost CD player. Payment of the filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 2} Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant explained that 
plaintiff was transferred to security control on December 13, 2009 and that his personal 

property was packed incident to this transfer. Defendant further explained that plaintiff 

subsequently was placed on disciplinary control and then local control. According to 

defendant, plaintiff’s security level was increased and he was transferred to defendant’s 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) on August 4, 2010. Defendant asserted 

that plaintiff did not produce any evidence to establish that any of his property items 

were lost or stolen while under the control of LCI staff or incident to a transfer to SOCF. 

Defendant submitted a copy of plaintiff’s property inventory compiled on August 4, 2010 

by SOCF personnel. This inventory does not list a CD player. The inventory does bear 

plaintiff's signature certifying that the items listed represent "a complete and accurate 

inventory of all my personal property." 

{¶ 3} Plaintiff did not file a response. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 4} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that 

duty, and that the 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}“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; Mussivand v. David

(1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265. 

{¶ 6}If an injury is the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act and it 

is such as should have been foreseen in the light of all the attending circumstances, the 

injury is then the proximate result of the negligence. It is not necessary that the 

defendant should have anticipated the particular injury. It is sufficient that his act is 

likely to result in an injury to someone.” Cascone v. Herb Kay Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 

155, 160, 6 OBR 209, 451 N.E. 2d 815, quoting Neff Lumber Co. v. First National Bank 

of St. Clairsville, Admr. (1930), 122 Ohio St. 302, 309, 171 N.E. 327. 

{¶ 7} 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. 

{¶ 8} 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. 

{¶ 9} 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. 

{¶ 10} Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for 

the conclusion that 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. 

{¶ 11} 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 issues, as to any issue 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. 

{¶ 12} Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish defendant actually assumed control over the property. 

Whiteside v. Orient Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-05751, 2005-Ohio-4455 obj. 

overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068. Plaintiff failed to prove defendant actually exercised control 

over a CD player. 

{¶ 13} Plaintiff’s failure to prove delivery of the above listed property 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. 

{¶ 14} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their 

testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 

2d 230, 39 O.O. 2d 366, 227 N.E. 2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is 

free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill

(1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 26 O.O. 2d 366, 197 N.E. 2d 548. The court does not find 

plaintiff’s assertions particularly persuasive regarding his claim of property loss. 
{¶ 15} Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between any loss of 

his property listed and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard to protecting 

inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD; 

Melson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2003), Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-

04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615. 

{¶ 16} Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any 

of his property was lost or destroyed as a proximate result of any negligent conduct 

attributable to defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(1998), 97-10146-AD. 

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 

DAVID SPEAKMAN, JR. 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

LONDON OHIO CORRECTIONAL INST. 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-10220-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

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. 

 
 ________________________________ 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

David Speakman, Jr., #559-022 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

1724 St. Rt. 728 Department of Rehabilitation 

Lucasville, Ohio 45699 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

SJM/laa 

3/8 

Filed 4/20/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 7/29/11