[Cite as Easley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-6680.]

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 EASLEY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-05277-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, David Easley, an inmate incarcerated at defendant’s 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), filed this action alleging his personal 

property was either lost or destroyed as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of 

SOCF staff. Specifically, plaintiff asserted his CD player and nineteen CDs were 

destroyed by SOCF personnel without authorization and his shoes and address book 

were lost when his property was packed by SOCF staff. Plaintiff claimed the property 

destruction and loss occurred on or after May 8, 2009. Plaintiff submitted 

documentation showing he purchased nineteen CDs between July 2, 2008 and August 

4, 2008. The total purchase price of the CDs amounted to $186.00. Plaintiff submitted 

a copy of a title to a CD player issued on February 2, 2008. The listed value of the CD 

player was $48.85. Plaintiff did not provide any documentation concerning the value of 

his alleged lost address book and shoes. Payment of the filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 2} 2) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant explained 

plaintiff was transferred to security control on May 8, 2008 and his personal property 
was packed incident to this transfer. Defendant further explained plaintiff was placed on 

“constant watch” status on May 11, 2009 and May 31, 2009 with property in his 

possession being “removed until it could safely be returned to him.” Defendant provided 

copies of property inventories reflecting property items possessed by plaintiff that were 

delivered to SOCF staff during May 2009. The May 8, 2009 inventory shows SOCF 

staff packed a CD player and ten CDs that were in plaintiff’s possession. None of the 

inventories compiled during May 1009 lists any type of shoes other than “shower shoes” 

or an address book. Defendant denied any SOCF employees destroyed a CD player 

and CDs owned by plaintiff. Defendant submitted a copy of plaintiff’s property inventory 

compiled on August 29, 2009. This inventory lists a CD player and three CDs among 

plaintiff’s property. No shoes or address book are listed on the August 29, 2009 

inventory. Defendant asserted plaintiff did not offer any evidence to prove SOCF staff 

ever “took shoes or an address book into its possession.” Defendant contended plaintiff 

failed to produce any evidence to show any of his property was lost or destroyed while 

in the custody of SOCF personnel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 3} 1) 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. 

{¶ 4} 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; Mussivand v. 

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

{¶ 5} 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. 

{¶ 6} 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. 

{¶ 7} 5) 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. 

{¶ 8} 6) 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} 7) 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} 8) 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. 

{¶ 11} 9) 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 shoes or an address book. 

{¶ 12} 10) 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. 

{¶ 13} 11) 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 claims of property loss and 

destruction. 

{¶ 14} 12) 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. 

{¶ 15} 13) 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 EASLEY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 
Case No. 2009-05277-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: 

David Easley, #306-400 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 

12/14 

Filed 12/17/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/25/11