HARLEY L. NICHOLS, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, alleged that his television, converter box, and fan were stolen from his locked cell while he was at breakfast. The court denied the claim because there was no affirmative showing of staff negligence and no evidence of a bailment.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (S UZANNE SCHMITZ, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- PRISONERS AN D INMATEs-res ipsa loquitur not applicable to prisoner personal property cuses. The Court of Claims has generally not recognized the legal theory of res ipsa loquitur in actions for inmates of correctional facilities based on the loss of personal property, but where staff negligence has been affirmatively shown, awards can be made.
- BAILMENTS-priSOneT personal property loss-what necessary to justify award. When an inmate is able to show a bailment of his personal property by a preponderance of the evidence and the State is unable to present evidence showing the exercise of due care with regard to the bailed property of the inmate, an award may be granted.
- PRISONERS AN D I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s - in mproperty ate ’ s lost-no bailment shownno negligence shown-claim denied. An inmate of a correctional facility allegedly lost some personal property including a television, but his claim based on that loss was denied, since he failed to present any evidence of a bailment, or that negligence on the part of the staff of the facility caused his loss.
On July 19, 1983, Claimant was a resident of the Illinois Department of Corrections at Pontiac Correctional Center. On that date, he was preparing to be transferred to Menard Correctional Center. Claimant had assembled and packed all of his personal property in his cell.
[*170] Claimant alleges that on that date, he went to the dining room of the Pontiac Correctional Center for his breakfast and left his personal property in his cell. He also claimed that he checked the cell door and it was locked when he left it. The Claimant further alleged that when he returned from his breakfast to his cell, he discovered his television set, converter box, and a fan were missing. Attached to the Claimant’s complaint was his personal property permit from Pontiac Correctional Center for his television set and converter.
Claimant alleges that his color television set was worth $285.97, his converter box was worth $43.96, and his fan was worth $35.00.
At the hearing held in this case, the Claimant testified that he had routinely gone to breakfast on the morning of July 19, 1983, and when he returned his property was missing. Claimant went to the guards and told them his property was missing. However, the officer in charge denied that Claimant reported the property missing at an administrative review hearing.
On cross-examination by Respondent, Claimant stated that his cell was locked. He further stated that in order to enter the cell an officer has to unlock the door.
Basically, Claimant’s theory is in the nature of res ipsa loquitur. The Court has not recognized this legal theory as a basis for awards in prisoner personal property cases. The Court has held that in cases of staff negligence, when affirmatively shown, an award can be made. In this case, no such showing of staff negligence has been made. The Court has also held that where a bailment is shown by a preponderance of the evidence and Respondent cannot show evidence showing due care, then an award may be made. In this case, the Court [*171] has not seen evidence of a bailment. For those reasons, we hereby deny this claim.