PAUL W. TEDDER, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, alleged his radio was lost while in state custody. The court denied the claim because claimant failed to prove the property ever came into the exclusive possession of correctional officers, so the burden of proof did not shift to the state.
Cases cited: Doubling v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1; Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc. v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 907 N.E.2d 84; Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So.2d 172; Bell v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 664; Bargas v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 99; Romero v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 631; Moore v. State, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 114
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- P RISONERS AND INMATES-inmate’s property-state’s duty. The State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when that property is taken into the State’s actual physical possession during transfers from one institution to another or when the institution issues a receipt for certain property.
- BAlLMENT-bailment may arise b y operation of low. A contract, actual or implied, is not always necessary to create a bailment, since a bailment may arise by operation of law when a person lawfully acquires the personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought to keep it safely and restore it to the owner, regardless of the lack of mutual assent to such a relationship.
- SAME-ZOSS of property-presumption of negligence. The loss or damage of bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which must be rebutted by the presentation of evidence of due care by the bailee, but this rule does not shift the ultimate burden of proof, since it merely shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence.
- P RISONERS AND INMATES-inmate’S radio lost-bailment not established-claim denied. An inmate’s claim for the loss of his radio when he was taken to a segregation unit without his personal property was denied, since the inmate failed to present a sworn affidavit of his cellmate which would have established that the radio was given to a correctional officer, therefore no bailment was established.
The Claimant in this case was an inmate in an Illinois penal institution. He brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property which he allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of [*48] Illinois, and that the State of Illinois is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.
This Court has held in Doubling v. State, 32 Ill. Ct.
C1.l, that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property. An example of this would be the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions or when the institution issues a receipt for certain property.
Bailment is ordinarily a voluntarily contractual transaction between bailor and bailee. However, various types of constructive or voluntary bailments have been recognized. An example arose in the case of Chesterfield Sewer G Water, lnc. v . Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, 57 Ill. App. 2d 90,907 N.E.2d 84. In Chesterfield, the Court quoted from another case, Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So.2d 172,174, as follows: “An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”
The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of going forward with the evidence to the bailee. Bell v . State, 32 Ill. Ct. C1. 664; Bargas v . State, 32 Ill. Ct. C1. 99; Rornero v . State, 32 Ill.
Ct. C1. 631; Moore v . State (1980), 34 Ill. Ct. C1. 114.
The facts in this case indicate that the Claimant was [*49] taken to the segregation unit without his personal property. After being placed in the segregation unit, he inquired about his property. When he finally received that property, he found that his radio was missing.
Correctional officers were unable to determine the whereabouts of the radio.
However, the Claimant was unable to obtain a sworn affidavit from his cellmate who, the Claimant advised, would have testified that the radio was given to an unidentified correctional officer.
Since the Claimant was unable to obtain such an affidavit, he was unable to establish by any evidence that his missing personal property ever came into exclusive possession of the Respondent’s correctional officers. Therefore, the burden of going forward with the evidence did not shift to the Respondent. Because of these facts, the Claimant’s claim should be denied.
Therefore, this claim is hereby denied.