ALBERT LEE, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, sought compensation for 11 books allegedly lost by the State. The court found the State negligent but denied the claim because the claimant failed to provide any evidence of the books' value.
Cases cited: Doubling vs. State, (1976), 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1, 2; Veal vs. State, (1990), 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 170, 171; Arsburg vs. State, (1978), 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. 127; Rivera vs. State, (1985), 38 Ill. Ct Cl. 272, 273
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
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 [*362] 362 54 Ill. Ct. Cl.
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 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 [*363] 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.