| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): PRISONS AND PRISONERS |
|
| Opinion Issued December 18, 2014 | |
| ROBERT BLAKE | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS | |
| (CC-13-0184) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. Cynthia R. M. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Robert Blake, an inmate at Huttonsville Correctional Center, brought this claim to recover the value of certain articles of clothing that he alleges were stolen or destroyed due to Respondent’s inadequate laundry procedure. The Claimant testified at the hearing of this matter that on February 2, 2013, the Respondent charged his personal account the total amount of $17.54 for one (1) state-issued khaki shirt, one (1) laundry bag, and one (1) hygiene bag. All of these items had been lost in the laundry. Claimant does not dispute that his items were lost; however, Claimant testified that it is Respondent’s laundry policy which caused the items to be lost. Claimant stated that laundry procedure is for inmates to place most articles of clothing inside of a laundry bag and seal before placing in the laundry cart. Other articles, such as khaki shirts and pants are to be loosely laid in the cart. Claimant argues that had he been allowed to place his khaki shirt and hygiene bag inside of his laundry bag, he would not have lost the items. Claimant also contends that it is not his responsibility to watch over his personal property once it leaves his cell and after he has complied with laundry protocol. 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 see that Claimant’s laundry was returned to him. Therefore, the Court finds that Respondent is liable for Claimant’s missing personal property items and that Claimant’s account should not have been charged for the missing items. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to make an award to Claimant in the amount of $17.54. Award of $17.54. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **