to S.C. reporter 2/14/17
Plaintiff, Tyrone Golphin, an inmate, filed a complaint
against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction ("ODRC"), asserting on March 13, 2015,
he was transferred from defendant's Richland Correctional
Institution ("RICI") to defendant's Marion
Correctional Institution ("MCI"). Plaintiff related
upon his arrival at MCI he noticed his box had been opened so
he requested an inventory of his property, which was refused.
Accordingly, he refused to sign the pack-up slip. Plaintiff
contended he contacted both institutions about the loss of
his property to no avail.
Plaintiff asserted the following property and their values
were lost in the transfer: Relic Watch, $250.00; wedding
band, $700.00; two pairs of pajamas, $44.00; two bowls,
$9.94; and a towel, $4.50. Plaintiff's damages total $1,
008.44. Plaintiff was not required to submit the $25.00
Plaintiff submitted a copy of an Inmate Property Record dated
March 13, 2015, and prepared at RICI prior to his transfer.
The Property Record revealed the possession of a watch,
wedding band, two pairs of pajamas, and two bowls but no
Plaintiff provided certificates of ownership for a wedding
band and Relic watch. On the certificate of ownership for the
watch it indicated that the watch was used when the
certificate was issued on July 17, 2008.
Plaintiff submitted a Disposition of Grievance dated June 17,
2015. In the Grievance, defendant stated that the pack-up
officer, "Sgt. Merrill did not follow correct procedure
in inventorying your property." However, although
defendant admitted the loss of plaintiffs property defendant
asserted the loss occurred at RICI not MCI and accordingly no
action was taken.
Defendant filed an investigation report, acknowledging that
plaintiffs watch and wedding band were lost during the
transfer of his property from RICI to MCI. However, defendant
contends 61-PRP-01 supports the valuation of plaintiffs
wedding band at $100.00. Although, defendant admits the loss
of plaintiffs watch, defendant does not place a value on his
Defendant denied responsibility for the loss of plaintiffs
two pairs of pajamas and two bowls since he failed to provide
proof of ownership. Finally, defendant contends plaintiff
should not be reimbursed for the loss of his personal towel
since the towel does not appear on the Inmate Property Record
of March 13, 2015, and plaintiff signed the following
statement prior to his transfer to MCI; "I certify that
the above listed items are complete and accurate inventory of
all my personal property."
Plaintiff filed a response to defendant's investigation
report. Plaintiff asserted the evidence submitted revealed he
was in possession of the property he asserted was missing on
his departure from RICI, as evidenced by the DRC2055. Second,
plaintiff questions the value of a wedding band at $100.00.
Third, plaintiff contends the failure to list his personal
towel on the DRC2055 is the fault of defendant's agents,
not his. Plaintiff contended it is reasonable that he
possessed a towel. Finally, plaintiff asserted this court
should accept the values he placed on the loss of his
In order to prevail, in a claim of negligence, plaintiff must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant
owed him a duty, that it 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, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 8 citing
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio
St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984).
"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, 798 N.E.2d 1121, ¶ 41 (2nd Dist.),
citing Miller v. Paulson, 97 Ohio App.3d 217, 221,
646 N.E.2d 521 (10th Dist. 1994); Mussivand v.
David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989).
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 ...