Hahn v. Brown

• Decision Date: 14 September 1976
• Citation: 367 N.E.2d 884,51 Ohio App.2d 177
• Parties: , 5 O.O.3d 323 HAHN, Appellant, v. BROWN, Attorney General, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 177

51 Ohio App.2d 177

367 N.E.2d 884, 5 O.O.3d 323

HAHN, Appellant, v. BROWN, Attorney General, et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Sept. 14, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

The Ohio Youth Commission is not a parent, within the meaning of R.C. 3109.09, to incarcerated children so as to allow an action in the Court of Claims for the willful destruction of property.

James E. Hitchcock, Defiance, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Thomas E. Turk, Columbus, for appellees.

STRAUSBAUGH, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of Claims granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

The record indicates that two minors, David Filkins and Kevin Dooley, were committed to the custody of the Ohio Youth Commission due to persistent problems in the Juvenile Courts. The Ohio Youth Commission assigned the two juveniles to its Maumee Youth Camp. During the night and early morning of August 24 and 25, 1974, the two boys escaped from the camp. In effecting the escape, the juveniles broke into plaintiff's car, hot-wired it, and drove it from the vicinity of the youth camp to Cleveland, Ohio, where they sold the automobile to a third party after entering it into a demolition derby, after which the juveniles were apprehended by law enforcement officials.

Plaintiff's first assignment of error states:

"The Court of Claims erred in deciding that the state was not a parent for purposes of ORC 3109.09."

R.C. 3109.09 provides:

"Any owner of property is entitled to maintain an action to recover compensatory damages in a civil action in an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars and costs of suit in a court of competent jurisdiction from the parents having the custody and control of a minor under the age of eighteen years, who willfully damages property belonging to such owner. A finding of willful destruction of property is not dependent upon a prior finding of delinquency of such minor.

"Such action shall be commenced and heard as in other civil actions for damages."

We find that under the above section only "parents" are made liable by the legislature. The mere fact that certain duties are imposed upon the Ohio Youth Commission and the Maumee Youth Camp does not convert such entities into the status of a "parent" which is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) as:

"(O)ne that begets or brings forth offspring: father, mother * * *."

Had the legislature intended for other persons, or entities, to be included within the meaning of the statute, they would not have used the word "parent." Plaintiff's first assignment of error is overruled.

Plaintiff's second assignment of error reads:

"The Court of Claims erred in holding a youth is as likely to steal a car at home as to escape from the Ohio Youth Camp."

While it may be true that a youth is as likely to steal a car at home as to escape from the Ohio Youth Camp, in the first instance, while the child is at home with his parent a statutory liability may be imposed upon the parent, whereas there is no liability imposed by the legislature on the Ohio Youth Commission or the Maumee Youth Camp. It must be remembered that the liability imposed under R.C. 3109.09 is statutory and the wording of the statute cannot be altered to conform to the desires of a litigant. Plaintiff's...