[Cite as Rachel v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-2732.]

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 

DANIEL J. RACHEL 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-02804-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Daniel J. Rachel, an inmate formerly incarcerated at defendant’s 

Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI), filed this action alleging his television set was 

lost as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of TCI package room personnel. 

Plaintiff explained he delivered his television set to a TCI employee, Officer Johnson, on 

February 25, 2008 and requested the set be mailed to the vendor, Access “for warranty 

replacement or refund.” Plaintiff pointed out he neither received a replacement 

television set nor a refund of the purchase price from Access and he consequently 

made a written inquiry concerning the status of his claim. Plaintiff advised Access 

responded “claiming they did not receive my tv and asked for confirmation of shipment” 

from TCI. Plaintiff asserted his television set was never mailed to Access contending 

the set was lost while in the possession of TCI package room staff, specifically, Officer 

Johnson. Plaintiff recalled his inmate account was never charged for shipping his 

television set from TCI. Plaintiff maintained TCI should bear responsibility for the loss of 
Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 2 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

his television set and he has requested damages in the amount of $181.36, the stated 

replacement value of the set. Plaintiff also requested $10.26 for postage and copying 

costs he incurred in pursuing this claim.1

 Plaintiff was not required to pay a filing fee to 

prosecute this action. Plaintiff submitted a copy of a receipt for the purchase of a 

television set from Access dated December 12, 2007. Information on the receipt shows 

the television set was purchased by a Melanie A. Gussett and sent to plaintiff at TCI. 

Total purchase price of the set was $181.36. Plaintiff also submitted documentation 

signed by Officer Johnson, who wrote “KTV71213032 Sent Back to Access 2-25-08.” 

Plaintiff also submitted a document from Access (dated July 17, 2008) indicating, “[a]s 

of 7/16/08 no tv has been returned.” 

{¶ 2} Defendant denied liability in this matter arguing plaintiff failed to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish his television set was lost while under the control of TCI 

personnel. Defendant stated “it was Plaintiff’s own actions in failing to mail his property 

via certified mail that resulted in there being no tracking number to help Plaintiff locate 

his property.” Defendant noted TCI employee, Officer Johnson sent plaintiff’s television 

set back to Access on three separate occasions, including February 2008, Defendant 

seemingly maintained plaintiff’s television set was mailed from TCI in February 2008 via 

regular mail. Defendant related plaintiff “paid for regular postage” to send his television 

set to Access. Defendant did not provide any record of funds being withdrawn from 

plaintiff’s account to pay for postage during the month of February 2008. Defendant 

contended the television set was mailed from TCI in February 2008 and consequently, 

 1 Postage and copying costs are not compensable in a claim of this type. Carnail v. Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-06322-AD, 2008-Ohio-1207; Tyler v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 3 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 3 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

TCI has no responsibility for the item once it leaves the institution. 

{¶ 3} Plaintiff filed a response insisting his television set was never mailed from 

TCI via any mail and was lost while under the control of TCI personnel. Plaintiff pointed 

out his inmate account was never charged for postage expense in February 2008 for 

mailing a television set. Plaintiff submitted documentation showing no shipping costs 

were charged to his inmate account from February 24, 2008 through March 26, 2008. 

After reviewing all evidence submitted, the trier of fact finds plaintiff’s television set was, 

in all probability, lost while under the control of TCI package room personnel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

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

preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owned 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} 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 . . .” 

 

Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-07299-AD, 2008-Ohio-3418. 
Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 4 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

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) “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} 4) 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} 5) 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. 

{¶ 9} 6) 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. 

{¶ 10} 7) 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 
Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 5 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 5 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any 

essential 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. 

{¶ 11} 8) Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce 

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

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

overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068. Plaintiff offered sufficient proof to establish TCI staff 

exercised control over his televison set. 

{¶ 12} 9) 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; Tyler v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-

07299-AD, 2008-Ohio-3418. 

{¶ 13} 10) The standard measure of damages for personal property is market 

value. McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 40, 644 

N.E. 2d 750. The trier of fact finds that the value of plaintiff’s property that has been 

confirmed as lost while under the TCI staff amounts to $181.36. Defendant is liable to 

plaintiff for that amount. 
Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 6 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

 

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 

DANIEL J. RACHEL 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-02804-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 
Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 7 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case No. 2006-03532-AD - 7 - MEMORANDUM DECISION

of plaintiff in the amount of $181.36. Court costs are assessed against defendant. 

 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Daniel J. Rachel, #530-216 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

P.O. Box 788 Department of Rehabilitation 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

 

RDK/laa 

2/9 

Filed 3/9/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 5/27/11