WALTER MONTGOMERY, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged his watch was stolen from his cell while he was on work detail. The court denied the claim because claimant had a cellmate present and there was no evidence the cell was searched by Department agents, so the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply and no bailment was created.
Cases cited: Walker v. State (1986), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 286
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRISONERS AND INMATES-wristwatch missing from cell-chim deniedabsence of bailment. In response to an inmate’s claim for the value of a wristwatch allegedly stolen from his cell while he left the cell to go on a work detail, the Court denied the claim, even though the cell was placed on deadlock when the Claimant left and was removed from deadlock when he returned, where a fellow inmate remained in the cell during the Claimant’s absence, there was no evidence that the cell was under the sole and exclusive possession of the Department of Corrections during his absence, and no bailment was created.
OPINION
PATCHETT, J
This complaint was filed while the Claimant was a resident of the ’ Illinois Department of Corrections.
[*245] Claimant had purchased a Timex watch for $31.95 at the Menard commissary on August 8, 1984. The Claimant alleged that he still owned and possessed the watch on November 11, 1984, when he left his cell to go to work detail. Upon returning to his cell, he found his cell mate still asleep, but claims the door which he had left on deadlock was open. He discovered his watch missing at the time.
The departmental report filed in this case tends to confirm that when the Claimant left his cell, the cell was indeed placed on deadlock. Upon returning, if the Claimant actually found the door to have been removed from deadlock, then either agents of the Department, or fellow inmates could have entered the cell during his absence and removed the watch.
I
This Court decided a somewhat similar claim under
I
the doctrine res ipsa loquitur in Walker v . State (1986), 1 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 286. However in the Walker case, the I Claimant did not have a cellmate. In the Walker case, the cell was also placed on deadlock upon the prisoner I leaving, and when the Claimant returned to the cell, he
I
found that his cell had been searched by agents of the Department of Corrections. He then claimed that certain items of personal property were missing. Under I those limited circumstances, this Court applied the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, and granted the Claim. I
I
We do not feel that the Walker case applies here. In I this case, the Claimant had a cellmate who was present the entire time. The Claimant was gone from the cell on I the day in question. Secondly, there is no evidence
I
before this Court to indicate that the cell was searched by agents of the Department of Corrections during his ,
I
absence. Since the facts in this case do not establish that I at any time the cell, and the personal property included , [*246] therein, were in the sole and exclusive possession of the Department of Corrections or its employees, we find the Walker case to be inapplicable. We also find that no bailment was created. Therefore we must deny liability, and deny this claim.