| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): PRISONS AND PRISONERS |
|
| Opinion Issued January 12, 2015 | |
| EDWARD WALL | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS | |
| (CC-12-0494) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. Cynthia R.M. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Edward Wall, an inmate at St. Mary’s Correctional, brought this claim to recover the value of certain personal property items that he alleges were stolen due to Respondent’s negligent supervision. The Claimant testified at the hearing of this matter that on October 20, 2012, he was told that he had to be in court. Because Claimant had been robbed previously, Claimant asked the officer on duty if she would take extra precautions to make sure that his personal property was not stolen while he attended court. When Claimant returned to the facility at 5:00 p.m., Claimant discovered that his box was unlocked and numerous items of personal property were missing. These items included a CD Player, CDs, and headphones valued at $369.45. Claimant argues that a de facto bailment was created between himself and Respondent, and that Respondent is liable for failing to supervise his property while he attended a mandatory court hearing. 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 Court agrees that a de facto bailment existed because testimony revealed that at least one correctional officer became aware of the risk that the property would be stolen and undertook the responsibility to safeguard it. Based on the facts of this case, Claimant is entitled to recover the value of his stolen goods. Nevertheless, the Court does not find that Claimant is without fault. Therefore, the Court does recommend an award less twenty-five percent (25%) of the value sought in the Claimant’s Notice of Claim based on the Claimant’s comparative fault. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to Claimant in the amount of $273.45. Award of $273.45. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **