MOORE v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHAB. CORR

DANIEL R. BORCHERT, Deputy Clerk.

On August 5, 1986, while Frederick D. Moore was at school, corrections officers at the Orient Correctional Institute conducted a shakedown of 4-E dormitory. During the course of the shakedown, Moore alleges the lock was cut off his wall locker and the contents of the locker were left in the middle of the dormitory. As a result, some personal items were stolen. Defendant, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, denies liability.

In conducting a shakedown of an inmate's personal property, correction officers must exercise reasonable and ordinary care. Consequently, defendant can be held liable if its agents were negligent in the manner they conducted the shakedown or in not properly securing the property after the shakedown is completed. Tyson v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (1979), Ct. of Claims No. 77-0605-AD, unreported; Marshall v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (May 8, 1987), Ct. of Claims No. 86-03038-AD, unreported. This standard should be followed in routine shakedowns, such as the one conducted here. Only in extreme emergency situations can this standard be relaxed.

Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, he incurred a loss, and the loss was proximately caused by defendant's negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State Univ. Hosp. (1977), Ct. of Claims No. 76-0368-AD, unreported. To make this showing, plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence or documentation to satisfy the trier of facts. Id. Evidence which furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, is insufficient; plaintiff must furnish a reasonable basis for substantiating all essential issues in the case. Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 99, 53 O.O. 25, 33, 118 N.E.2d 147, 157; Hogan v. Ohio Dept. of Corr. (1985), Ct. of Claims No. 84-06633-AD, unreported.

At times, plaintiff's unsubstantiated statements may be sufficient to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. See Brosseau v. Southern Ohio Corr. Facility (1985), Ct. of Claims No. 84-07079-AD, unreported. In this particular case, his statements are sufficient. When contraband is found, corrections officers cut off locks and issue a rules infraction ticket. It appears inconceivable a lock would be cut off a locker when the contents were already shook down. No ticket was issued to plaintiff indicating discovery of contraband. Therefore, defendant was negligent in cutting off the lock and, subsequently, leaving the property in the middle of the dormitory.

Plaintiff's statement as to what was lost and its value is sufficient with two exceptions. First, he cannot recover for a stereo/cassette which was returned. Second, plaintiff is limited by defendant's value limitations for tennis shoes, sweatsuits, and shirts because constructive notice can be inferred. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to damages of $189.28.

So ordered.