| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): PRISONS AND PRISONERS |
|
| Opinion Issued December 18, 2014 | |
| ABNER ALLEN | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS | |
| (CC-13-0041, CC-13-0042) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. Cynthia R. M. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Abner Allen, an inmate at Huttonsville Correctional Center, brought these claims to recover the value of certain personal property items that he alleges were converted based on Respondent’s alleged negligent supervision of Claimant’s property. The Court has decided to consolidate the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant testified at the hearing of this matter that while living in the dormitory area of the facility a set of headphones used for listening to the television were stolen from his lockbox while he was attending church. Claimant asserts that Respondent is responsible for safekeeping inmate property while inmates are not in the living area. Claimant submitted documentation showing the value of his stolen headphones to be $28.75. The Claimant also testified that on a separate occasion, after having been taken to segregation, numerous items of personal property were not accounted for by Respondent’s Officers. These items include: one (1) khaki hat, one (1) pair of sweat pants, one (1) sweatshirt, and miscellaneous personal hygiene items. Claimant provided documentation showing the value of these items to be $58.92. Therefore, the value of both of Claimant’s claims total $87.67. Claimant argues that a bailment was created between himself and Respondent on both occasions, and that Respondent is liable for failing to return his personal property items to him. Respondent offered no evidence to refute the fact that Respondent has this duty. It is the law in West Virginia that the creation of a bailment situation “imposes upon the bailee the obligation to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for the safety of the property so delivered.” Barnette v. Casey, 124 W. Va. 143, This Court has held that a bailment exists when Respondent records the personal property of an inmate and takes it for storage purposes, and then has no satisfactory explanation for not returning it. Page v. Division of Corrections, 23 Ct. Cl. 238 (2000); Heard v. Division of Corrections, 21 Ct. Cl. 151 (1997). In the present claim, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that Claimant and Respondent had created a bailor/bailee relationship and that Respondent had a duty to return Claimant’s items while being processed for segregation. The Court also finds that Respondent is liable for the missing headphones because a de facto bailment was created when Claimant left the dormitory area. Respondent has an obligation to safeguard property that has been stored in state-issued lock boxes with state-issued locks. No inmate can be expected to watch his personal property on a twenty-four hour basis. Therefore, the Court finds that Respondent is liable for Claimant’s missing personal property items in both claims. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to Claimant in the amount of $87.67. Award of $87.67. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **