[Cite as Bryson v. N. Cent. Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-7054.]

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

KENNETH BRYSON 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-04312-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶1} Plaintiff, Kenneth Bryson, an inmate formerly incarcerated at defendant, 

North Central Correctional Institution (NCCI), filed this action alleging that several items 

of his personal property were lost or stolen on four separate occasions. The first 

incident occurred on September 3, 2010, after plaintiff left his bunk area and the 

following items were stolen: one Sony CD player ($74.89), one Pac-man video game 

($30.50), one RF Modulator ($17.12), one pair Nike tennis shoes ($40.00), one pair of 

sweatpants ($9.10), and one sweatshirt ($9.10). Plaintiff recalled the second incident 

occurred on September 7, 2010, when plaintiff’s television remote ($10.80), beard 

trimmer ($23.56), and padlock ($4.92), were stolen by unidentified inmates. According 

to the allegations in the complaint, the third incident took place on September 14, 2010, 

when plaintiff’s television, headphone accessory kit, television signal splitter, coaxial 

cable, and padlock were stolen from his bunk area. Then according to plaintiff, on 

October 8, 2010, plaintiff’s Koss headphones ($18.73), were stolen, as well. 
{¶2} Plaintiff requested damage recovery in the amount of $476.45, the stated 

total value of the alleged missing property, plus $100.00 “in costs associated with 

bringing this action.”1 The filing fee was paid. 

{¶3} Plaintiff submitted a copy of his notification of grievance and the resulting 

disposition of that grievance, as well as the decision on plaintiff’s appeal to the chief 

inspector. Based upon a review of those documents, the court notes that defendant 

denied plaintiff’s grievance inasmuch as plaintiff failed to show that defendant took 

possession of or acted negligently in protecting plaintiff’s property, defendant supplied 

plaintiff with a lockable locker box in which to secure his property, and defendant’s 

employees conducted a reasonable search for plaintiff’s stolen property after each theft 

report was received. 

{¶4} Defendant denied liability in this matter contending that plaintiff failed to 

offer any evidence to establish that any of his property was lost or stolen as a result of 

any breach of a duty of care owed on the part of NCCI personnel in regard to inmate 

property protection. Defendant asserted both that there was no evidence that NCCI 

staff removed or permitted the removal of plaintiff’s property from his bunk area and that 

a search was conducted in reference to each incident. Defendant referenced a report 

prepared by the NCCI institutional inspector; however, a copy of the inspector’s report 

was not filed with the investigation report. 

{¶5} Plaintiff filed a response reiterating the allegations of his complaint and 

asserting that the corrections officers were negligent for failing to protect plaintiff’s 

property from theft attempts, for putting the wrong date on one of plaintiff’s theft/loss 

reports, and for failing to review camera footage in an effort to identify the offending 

inmate or inmates. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶6} 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, 

 1 Postage and copying expenses are not compensable in a claim of this type. To the extent 

plaintiff seeks to include these costs in the damage claim the request is denied and shall not be further 

addressed. See Lamb v. Chillicothe Corr. Inst. Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-01788-AD, 2004-Ohio-1841, citing 

Hamman v. Witherstine (1969), 20 Ohio Misc. 77, 49 O.O. 2d 126, 252 N.E.2d 196. 
Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. 

{¶7} “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. 

{¶8} 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. 

{¶9} The allegation that a theft may have occurred is insufficient to show 

defendant’s negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-

07091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1986), 84-02425. Plaintiff 

must show defendant breached a duty of ordinary or reasonable care. Williams. 

{¶10} Defendant is not responsible for thefts committed by inmates unless an 

agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Walker v. 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD. 

{¶11} The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker box to secure 

valuables constitutes prima facie evidence of defendant discharging its duty of 

reasonable care. Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-

02635-AD. 

{¶12} 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. 

{¶13} Generally, defendant has a duty to conduct a search for plaintiff’s 

property within a reasonable time after being notified of the theft. Phillips v. Columbus 

Correctional Facility (1981), 79-0132-AD; Russell v. Warren Correctional Inst. (1999), 

98-03305-AD. 

{¶14} Plaintiff has failed to show an causal connection between the 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. 

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

of his property was stolen or lost 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 

KENNETH BRYSON 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-04312-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: 

Kenneth Bryson, #626-261 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

P.O. Box 540 Department of Rehabilitation 

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

SJM/laa 

10/14 

Filed 11/2/11 
Sent to S.C. reporter 3/30/12