Albert Lee v. State of Illinois

ALBERT LEE, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Respondent.

(Order filed September 10, 2001

ALBERT LEE, pro se.

JAMES RYAN, Attorney General (MARK McCULLOGH, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

PRISONERS AND INMATES claimant has burden to prove existence of bailment Claimant established the existence of a bailment when books were delivered to respondent s agent and respondent took exclusive control of the books in question.

SAME creation of bailment Claimant established the existence of a bailment when books were delivered to respondent s agent and respondent took exclusive control of the books in question.

DAMAGES claimant has burden to show value of missing books Claimant s failed to provide any evidence of the value of missing books and therefore the claim must be denied.

OPINION

JANN, N

Claimant brings this cause of action as in inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, seeking compensation for items of personal property allegedly lost by Respondent.

Claimant s Complaint (statement of facts) filed August 27, 1996, alleges that Claimant received a package that was supposed to contain 15 books which contained only 4 books. Claimant contends that since the Institution had not disapproved of the 11 missing books, Respondent is liable for the value of the books. Respondent s Departmental Report suggest that there were records in Claimant s file to the effect that the books had been sent by the Administrative Review Board to Stateville Correctional Center and that Claimant had been assured that he would received the books. Claimant contends the books never reached him, and that his grievances were uniformly denied by Respondent s Grievance Committee which noted that Claimant s allegations of inappropriate mail handling had not been [*493] substantiated. Claimant seeks an award of $100,000.00.

Claimant testified that the books were a gift from his relatives and he was unaware of their value.

Respondent offered its Departmental Report and did not produce any witnesses.

The law is clear. The burden rests upon Claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the missing property was, in fact, delivered to the agents of Respondent, and that the Respondent did not utilize reasonable care to insure its return of the value of the property. (Doubling vs. State, (1976), 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1, 2.) Where Respondent takes exclusive possession of an inmate s property, a bailment is created and when there is a subsequent loss of or damage to the bailed property while in the Respondent s possession, a presumption of negligence is raised which the Respondent must then rebut by evidence of due care. Veal vs. State, (1990), 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 170, 171; Arsburg vs. State, (1978), 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. 127.

It is not disputed that Respondent s Central Publications Review Committee reviewed and forwarded 11 books to Claimant s prison for delivery to him on August 2, 1995. Claimant s grievances were denied on the basis of a finding that there is insuf ficient evidence or information to determine whether or not books were delivered to Grievant (Claimant) . Thus, there is evidence that Claimant s books were in the exclusive possession of Respondent. Respondent produced no evidence that the books were returned to Claimant or that due care was used by Respondent in handling Claimant s personal property. Claimant has raised the presumption of the State s negligence and the State did not present any evidence of due care to rebut the presumption.

The Court must conclude that Respondent was negligent. However, the next issue is whether Claimant met his burden of proof to show the fair cash market value of his lost books .

It is impossible to place any dollar value on the items lost. Claimant testified that the books were purchased by his mother and were a gift to him, but he did not know the cost of the books or where they had been purchased. There was no proof of any kind of the value of the books. There is no basis for coming with a compromise figure. Where there is a total failure on the part of the Claimant to produce any evidence from which this court may assess the fair market vale of lost property, the claim must be denied. Rivera vs. State, (1985), 38 Ill. Ct Cl. 272, 273.

For failure of proof of damages, it is therefore ordered that this clam be denied.

[*494] 494 54 Ill. Ct. Cl.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, CIVIL

DEFENSE WORKERS, CIVIL AIR PATROL

MEMBERS, PARAMEDICS, FIREMEN

AND STATE EMPLOYEES

COMPENSATION ACT

OPINIONS NOT PUBLISHED IN FULL

FY 2002

Where a claim for compensation filed pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers, Civil Defense Workers, Civil Air Patrol Members, Paramedics, Firemen and State Employees Compensation Act (820 ILCS 315/1 et seq.), within one year of the date of death of a person covered by said Act, is made and it is determined by investigation of the Attorney General of Illinois as affirmed by the Court of Claims, or by the Court of Claims following a hearing, that a person covered by the Act was killed in the line of duty, compensation in the amount of $20,000 or $50,000 if such death occurred on or after July 1, 1983, shall be paid to the designated beneficiary of said person or, if none was designated or surviving, then to such relative(s) as set forth in the Act.

96-CC-4337 GRADLE, ELIZABETH ............................................ $100,000.00 01-CC-1420 GOTKOWSKI, ROSEMARY .................................... $100,000.00 01-CC-3596 TALLEY, LORI ........................................................... $100,000.00 01-CC-4493 GILLEN, TERESA ..................................................... $100,000.00 01-CC-4713 DECKARD, BARBRA J ............................................ $118,000.00 01-CC-4777 CHRISTOFFER, LUCILLE S. ................................... $110,000.00 02-CC-1015 TALBOT, LADONNA L. ............................................ $118,000.00 02-CC-1259 AUGUSTYN, SHARON ............................................. $118,000.00 02-CC-1588 LEE, SHAWN S. ......................................................... $118,000.00 02-CC-1742 RICE, ARDINE Y. ....................................................... $118,000.00 02-CC-2808 SEGALLA, PAUL ....................................................... $118,000.00 02-CC-3313 FAULKNER, CHRISTINE A. ..................................... $120,963.03 02-CC-3928 PEREZ, MARJORIE ................................................... $118,000.00 02-CC-4836 STREICHER, ALAN AND STREICHER, LAURIE .. $118,000.00