CORNELIUS LEWIS, Claimant, v . THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought recovery for personal property lost while in the State's possession during transfer. The court found the State liable as a bailee and awarded $219.19, the stipulated value of the missing property.
Cases cited: Doubling v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1; Chesterfield Sewer and Water, Inc. v. Citizens Insurance Company of New Jersey, 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 207 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
- PRISONERS AND INMATES-inmate’s property-State’s duty of care. The State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes possession of such property or when the institution receipts for such property.
- BAILMENTS-when constructive bailment arises. A constructive bailment can be created when one person has lawfully acquired possession of another’s personal property and holds it under circumstances under which principles of justice require that it be kept safely and that possession be restored to the owner, and any loss or damage to the property while in the bailee’s possession raises a presumption of negligence.
- PRISONERS AND INMATES-StOred property lost-stipulated value-award granted. Based on a stipulation as to the facts and value of personal property lost by an inmate, an award was granted, where Claimant-inmate’s personal property was inventoried, packed and stored in a locked personal property storage room and certain of his property was missing when the stored items
- 255 I were later returned, since there was no proof whereby it could be I determined that the State was without fault in the loss of Claimant’s property.
Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution,
I
I
I
I
has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of 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, 32 111. Ct. , C1.1, that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care
I
to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it I takes actual physical possession of such property, as during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions, or when the institution receipts for property.
While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and voluntary bailments have been recognized: “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.” Chesterfield Sewer and Water, Znc. v. Citizens Insurance Company of New Jersey, 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 207 N.E.2d 84.) In Chesterfield, the Court quotes from 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 or 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.”
[*256] 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 proceeding or going forward with the evidence. Bell v. State, 32 111. Ct. C1. 664; Bargas v . State, 32 Ill. Ct. C1.99; Romero v . State, 32 Ill. Ct. C1. 631; Moore v . State, 34 111. Ct. C1. 114.
This case comes on for hearing on the joint stipulation of Claimant and Respondent without the benefit of a hearing.
From the stipulated facts, it appears clear that this case falls within the realm of personal property cases where a recovery should be allowed.
On March 2A, 1983, Claimant’s personal property was inventoried and packed in seven boxes, which were sealed with tape. The sealed boxes were admittedly placed in a locked personal property storage room at Menard Correctional Center in the control of Respondent.
When Claimant resumed possession of this property on April 2, 1983, certain of his property was missing, of a stipulated value of $219.19.
There is no proof in the record or facts in the stipulation whereby it may be determined that Respondent was without fault in the loss of Claimant’s personal property.
It is therefore ordered that Claimant be awarded $219.19 in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.