AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Monthly Law Journal Article: Public Protection: Liability for Actions of Prisoners and Former Prisoners, 2009 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
After a halfway
home resident broke into a woman's home and seriously injured her by shooting
her, the victim sued the state, the halfway home's manager, and the state
director of corrections. The trial court entered summary judgment for the
halfway home's manager, the halfway home, the state, and the state corrections
director. Affirming that result, a federal appeals court found no evidence
that the halfway home manager knew about the assailant's history of abusing
the plaintiff, or of her phone call to the halfway home the afternoon of
the shooting. There was insufficient evidence that the manager's subordinates
were deliberately indifferent to a known risk of harm to the plaintiff
when they authorized the assailant to visit a store, or that they or the
manager had created a new danger to the victim or increased the danger
to her, as the danger had already existed before the assailant came to
live at the halfway home and would have continued to exist after he left.
As to claims against the state director of corections, he had no personal
involvement in the halfway home. Eleventh Amendment immunity barred failure
to protect claims against the state. Montgomery v. City of Ames, #15-1540,
829 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2016).
A Kansas minimum security inmate escaped from custody, entered a woman's house, forced her into a closet, and kicked her, causing her to fall and hit her head. She died from her injuries and her son sued the state for personal injuries and wrongful death. Upholding summary judgment for the state, the Kansas Supreme Court found that the defendant was entitled to immunity from liability under the police protection exception of a state tort claims act. Keiswetter v. State, #110610, 2016 Kan. Lexis 243.
Three weeks after being released from prison, having served 10 and a half years of a 21-year sentence, a male prisoner killed four people. The husband of one woman he killed sued state and correctional officials for violations of the decedent's substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as for negligence under the Nebraska state Tort Claims Act. A federal appeals court upheld an order dismissing claims against all defendants. It held that there is no general substantive due process right to be protected against the release of prisoners from custody, even if that release arguably violates state law. State law negligence claims were properly dismissed, since the defendants, in authorizing the release, were acting within the scope of their employment and carrying out a discretionary function. The defendants' decision not to seek a civil commitment of the prisoner was also a discretionary function. Kruger v. Nebraska, #15-1427, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6326 (8th Cir.).
Three weeks after being released from prison, having served 10 and a half years of a 21-year sentence, a male prisoner killed four people. The mother of one man he killed sued the state, the Department of Corrections, and other defendants for violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process and state law negligence under the Nebraska state Tort Claims Act. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of the due process claim as there is no constitutional right to be protected against the release of criminals from custody even if the release arguably violates state law. Two exceptions did not apply, as there was no special relationship between the victim and the prisoner, and the victim was not a member of a "limited, precisely definable group," where the defendants' conduct put her at a “significant risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm,” with the risk “obvious or known” to the defendants, who could be found to have “acted recklessly in conscious disregard of the risk,” in a manner that “shocks the conscience.” As to the state law negligence claims, the plaintiff had forfeited any challenge to their dismissal. Glasgow v. Nebraska, #15-1755, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6418 (8th Cir.).
The family of a woman raped and murdered by a former inmate four days after his release from prison sued the State Department of Mental Health and other defendants for failing to discharge mandatory duties imposed by a state Sexually Violent Predators Act to evaluate whether the prisoner should have been civilly committed. While the facts alleged, if true, did establish that the duty to conduct a Sexually Violent Predators assessment with two evaluators was breached (only one evaluator was used), the plaintiff failed to show that this was the proximate cause of the woman's death. State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Super. Ct., #S215132, 2015 Cal. Lexis 3898.
The California State Department of Mental Health and its officials were not liable for the rape and murder of the plaintiff's sister by a prisoner four days after he was released from prison. The plaintiff argued that they should be liable because they breached mandatory duties under the state's Sexually Violent Predators Act by failing to designate two mental health professionals to determine if the prisoner should continue to be confined as a sexual predator through a civil commitment. While the officials and the department were not immune from liability under state law for the breach of a mandatory duty, the plaintiff could not show that their failure caused the rape and death of her sister, because there was too much distance between the alleged breach and the criminal acts. Even had the mandatory duty been carried out, there was no certainty that this action would have resulted in a civil commitment. The plaintiff did have standing, however, to carry forward a action seeking a mandate that the defendants carry out their mandatory duties under the Act. State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, #B248603, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 882.
A man on parole from a Utah prison allegedly defrauded some people, and they, in turn, sued the state for negligent supervision, gross negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation. The Utah Supreme Court found that the state was entitled to governmental immunity for injuries arising from deceit, in this case, the deceit of a third party. Van De Grift v. State, #20110994, 2013 UT 11, 299 P.3d 1043, 2013 Utah Lexis 12, 729 Utah Adv. 27.
A number of plaintiffs claimed that they had been the victims of a $60 million fraudulent Ponzi investment scheme masterminded by a Utah prisoner out on parole, causing them to lose $27 million. The conditions of his parole prohibited him from leaving the state, handling other people's money, or being self-employed. A lawsuit against the state of Utah claimed that inadequate supervision of the parolee had allowed him to travel extensively and operate a multi-state real estate investment Ponzi scheme. The Utah Supreme Court found that the state was immune from liability for injuries arising out of deceit and that the dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis of governmental immunity was timely. Van De Grift v. State Court, #20110994, 2013 UT 11, 2013 Utah Lexis 12, 729 Utah Adv.
The State of California has reached a $20 million settlement with Jaycee Dugard, who was kidnapped in 1991 at age 11 and found in August of 2009 living in a shed in the backyard of Phillip Garrido, a registered sex offender who had been on parole since January of 1988. Garrido allegedly fathered two children with her, and he and his wife have been charged with 29 felonies in connection with the woman's captivity. The state attorney general's office issued a report stating that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failed to properly keep tabs on Garrido or properly supervise the officers assigned to his case. "While it is true that Garrido's California parole was never officially violated, our review shows that Garrido committed numerous parole violations and that the department failed to properly supervise Garrido and missed numerous opportunities to discover his victims." The report also indicates that, at one point, parole officers visiting Garrido actually spoke to Dugard and one of her daughters, but failed to investigate their identities or their relationship to the parolee. The settlement will go to the woman, now 30, and her daughters.
Nurses at a county jail were held hostage by inmates who escaped from their cells. During the recapture of the inmates, one of the nurses was shot by police. The nurses sought to sue the county and a private corporation that operated the jail, seeking damages. The defendants argued that the nurses' exclusive remedy was workers' compensation, so they could not sue. A Florida appeals court found that the nurses' claims were entirely based on allegations of negligence, so that an intentional torts exception to workers' comp exclusivity did not apply. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. Hunt v. Corrections Corporation of America, #1D09-1260, 2010 Fla. App. Lexis 6661 (1st Dist.).
A county was accused of violating the civil rights of a man killed by a mentally ill man released from custody after a 72-hour confinement. The county allegedly failed to provide the detainee with psychiatric medications during that period. The plaintiffs claimed that such medication would have diminished the detainee's assaultive behavior, and that denying him the medication amounted to having "weaponized" him and unleashing him on the public, resulting in the decedent's death. A federal appeals court found that the killing was simply "too remote" a consequence of the county's actions to serve as a basis for liability. There were no facts indicating that the county was aware of the mentally ill man's access to a gun or any propensity toward homicide. While his arrest was for home invasion and assaultive behavior, he had not previously shot anyone or carried a weapon. The murder was therefore unpredictable instead of legally foreseeable. Moore v. County of Milwaukee, #08-3621, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13917 (7th Cir.).
The estate of a person murdered by a prisoner days after his release failed to show that the murder was foreseeable or that the prison was negligent in monitoring inmate phone calls and mail, and failing to discover the prisoner's involvement in a murder conspiracy. There was no evidence that the prison violated its own policies and procedures, which did not require listening to all inmate calls. The employee assigned to monitor inmate calls heard nothing that indicated the existence of a murder conspiracy. Garris v. Dept. of Rehabilitation, #2005-11124, 2009 Ohio Misc. Lexis 243 (Ct. of Claims).
County was not liable for the death of two persons allegedly murdered by an inmate on work release. The plaintiffs, representatives of the decedents' estates, argued that the prisoner's work release should have been revoked when one of the decedents complained that the prisoner was harassing her, and that failure to do so violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court noted that there is no constitutional right to protection against violence by private persons. Additionally, there was no evidence that county officials did anything that had the effect of limiting the decedents' ability to use self-help to defend themselves. Sandage v. Bd. of Commissioners of Vanderburgh County, No. 08-1540, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24059 (7th Cir.).
A sheriff, captain, sergeant, and watch commander were not liable for a detainee's brutal attack on a female courtroom deputy, inflicting severe brain damage, when he was brought to the courtroom from a holding cell and disarmed her. The courtroom deputy, the appeals court noted, was not in custody, so that the failure to provide adequate security to prevent the attack violated her due process rights only if the defendants acted with deliberate indifference or engaged in conduct that was con
science shocking, which was not the case here. Further, the courtroom deputy was exposed to the danger of such an assault by the nature of her employment, and the claims against the defendants amounted to those similar to negligence, not deliberate indifference or conscience shocking behavior. Hall v. Freeman, No. 08-11238, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18421 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Private company that operated a prison under a contract with the State of Kentucky was not liable for an escaped prisoner's robbery, assault, and rape of a woman several hours after his escape. Under Kentucky state law, applied by the federal court on the plaintiff's negligence claim, there is no negligence liability when the harm to a third person, the victim, is caused by another person's intentionally criminal acts. Intentionally violent acts against unknown third persons, the court stated, are generally not regarded as foreseeable under Kentucky state law. Norris v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 3:07CV-273, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83965 (W.D. Ky.).
State of New York was not liable for the murder of the plaintiff's daughter on the basis of inadequate supervision of the parolee who killed her. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the State owed the decedent a duty of compliance with its supervisory procedures and policies which was different from that owed to the public at large. Lodge-Stewart v. N.Y., No. 501952, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 10976 (3rd Dept.).
City and its probation and parole department were not liable for the murders of a number of persons killed by a parolee who escaped from home detention. The plaintiffs failed to show that those killed by the parolee were "foreseeable" victims or that the defendants took affirmative actions which created or enhanced the danger to the victims, as required for the "state-created danger" theory of liability. Henry v. Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Dept., Civil Action No. 05-4809, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66247 (E.D. Pa.).
Residential substance abuse facility and its operator were not liable for crimes inflicted on victims in a nearby park by four inmates who escaped from the drug rehabilitation program there, and used a knife stolen from the facility's kitchen to stab the plaintiffs. There was no duty to protect the specific persons attacked from such injuries under California state law. Rice v. Center Point, Inc., No. A114953, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1434 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.).
Half-way house, which allegedly prematurely released a convicted felony into the community, could be held liable for his subsequent murder of the plaintiff's daughter. The question of whether the half-way house's negligence had caused the murder was a question for the jury. The court stated that it could be found to be reasonably foreseeable that a felon with a history of armed violence and burglary might commit a violent crime while breaking into a house if he was prematurely released. The half-way house's motions for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings were denied. Smith v. Hope Village, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-633, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26904 (D.D.C.).
Montana Supreme Court overturns summary judgment for defendant county in lawsuit filed by a stabbing victim claiming that the failure of the county jail to require that his attacker begin serving a sentence on other offenses prior to the attack was negligence that caused his injuries. A court order existed requiring the attacker to begin serving his sentence prior to the date of the attack, establishing a special custodial relationship, and the county, under these circumstances, had a duty to protect some third parties from the offender. Further proceedings were ordered on whether the offender's intentional action in stabbing the plaintiff was unforeseeable. Prindel v. Ravalli County, No. 04-640, 133 P.3d 165 (Mont. 2006). [N/R]
Pennsylvania probation officials and employees could not be held liable for a probationer's murder of the 8-year-old sister of his 12-year-old victim based on the failure to act more promptly in seeking to revoke his probation after he violated its conditions by attempting to continue a relationship with the 12-year-old whose morals he had previously been convicted of "corrupting." Mere inaction or failure to act swiftly did not constitute a "state-created danger." Bright v. Westmoreland County, No. 05-2005, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 8074 (3d Cir.). [2006 JB May]
Hospital employee taken hostage by inmate was properly awarded $500,000 in damages against private security company that took the prisoner to the hospital for medical treatment under contract with the state of Tennessee. Company employees were negligent in failing to both stay in hospital room with inmate and in allowing prisoner access to a weapon which he used to escape and kidnap employee and drive away with her in her car. Willis v. Settle, 162 S.W.3d 169 (Tenn. App. 2004), review denied, Tennessee Supreme Court (2005). [N/R]
The victim of a carjacking by a New York state prisoner who escaped while being transported from one correctional facility to another could not collect damages against the state. She failed to show that there was any special duty to protect her in particular from the inmate, or that she relied on the performance of such a duty. Even if correctional officers failed to properly perform their duties in connection with the custody and control of the prisoner, that was a violation of a general duty for the benefit of the public as a whole and not for the benefit of any specific individual. The state was therefore entitled to immunity from liability. Leonido v. State, No. 99960, 784 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Ct. Cl. 2004). [N/R]
County could not be held liable for death of murder victim allegedly killed by detainee who removed an electronic home monitoring restraint and escaped home detention before committing the crime. The county and its agencies had no "special duty" to protect the victim from the crime, and an exception to statutory immunity for injury and death that occurs within the grounds of buildings used in performance of public functions did not apply. Kennerly v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commissioners, 814 N.E.2d 1252 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Correctional agency, officials, and employees had no duty to protect a specific individual from assault by an escaped prisoner. Woman assaulted by inmate who escaped from a technical college at a prison facility therefore could not be awarded damages. Alabama Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 855 So. 2d 1016 (Ala. 2003). [N/R]
Federal officers responsible for convicted drug felon in witness protection program were not liable for his alleged sexual abuse of a female at a residential juvenile facility where they helped him obtain employment, or for his alleged continued sexual abuse of her after he became licensed as a foster parent and obtained custody of her. Nothing in his past criminal record made it foreseeable that he would engage in such conduct, since he had no prior crimes of violence or sexual abuse. Lawrence v. United States, #01-36142, 340 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Jan]
County sheriff's alleged non-use of handcuffs or shackles while transporting prisoner who escaped was insufficient to support a claim for damages under Texas law for escaped prisoner's subsequent alleged assault and robbery of plaintiff. Lopez v. McMillion, No. 04-03-0021-CV, 113 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App. 2003). [N/R]
State youth correctional officials could not be held liable for seventeen-year-old juvenile offender's shooting and killing of taxi driver after he was released from custody. State of Alaska had no duty to use due care in deciding whether or not to extend the juvenile's commitment and there was no showing that the offender presented a "particularized" threat to the person he killed. State of Alaska v. Sandsness, No. S-9910, 72 P.3d 299 (Alaska 2003). [N/R]
County could not be held liable for failing to protect community member against being shot and killed by a "house arrestee" who escaped after removing his home monitoring device. The county had no special relationship with the shooting victim which imposed a duty to protect him against this risk, and the county, in failing to take any action to recapture the house arrestee, did not do anything to create the danger to the victim. Kennerly v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [N/R]
County sheriff did not act as an agent or employee of the state when he allegedly released a state prisoner unlawfully before he had fully served his sentence, barring a claim for wrongful death against the state under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. Secs. 8-8-201(3) by a mother for the released prisoner's subsequent shooting and killing of her son. Cooper v. State of Tennessee, 106 S.W.2d 688 (Tenn. App. 2003). [N/R]
Mississippi Department of Corrections was not liable for parolee's alleged rape of woman based on discretionary decision not to revoke his parole when he failed to report to parole officer within 72 hours of his release from his custody in Illinois. Evidence failed to show gross or reckless failure to supervise parolee or that there was any knowledge of the parolee's intent to harm a particular person. Connell v. State Ex Rel. Mississippi Department of Corrections, #2002-CA-00135-SCT, 841 So. 2d 1127 (Miss. 2003). [2003 JB Jul]
State of New York was not liable for robbery committed by an adjudicated juvenile delinquent who fled a foster home after he was released from a state youth correctional facility. Plaintiff crime victim did not show that the state youth correctional authorities had any duty to the robbery victim or any special relationship with him, so that liability could not be based on alleged negligence in failing to apprehend and return delinquent to custody after he violated the terms of his conditional release. Anton v. State of New York, 757 N.Y.S.2d 338 (A.D. 2003). [N/R]
Washington State Department of Corrections liable for $22 million to estate of driver killed in collision with offender under Department's community supervision who was driving stolen vehicle. Question of whether Department's failure to take action over offender's violations of conditions of supervision was a cause of the driver's death was for the jury, intermediate appeals court holds. Joyce v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections, #26499-4-II, 64 P.3d 1266 (Wash. App. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Alabama Supreme Court overrules prior caselaw providing that all state officials have no duty to protect unforeseeable members of the public from harm resulting from escaped prisoners. New rule, except for parole officials, is that the trial court must consider, on a case-by-case basis whether there was a duty to protect third parties and whether the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity defense. Ryan v. Hayes, #1001578, 831 So. 2d 21 (Ala. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
County was not liable to parents under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for escaped prisoner's actions in killing one of their sons based on policies or customs that allegedly allowed the prisoner to escape. In shooting at the parent's sons, the prisoner did not act under color of state law, and the county was not aware that the victims of the prisoner's actions, as opposed to the public at large, faced any special danger from the escaped prisoner. Gaston v. Houston County, Texas, 196 F. Supp. 2d 445 (E.D. Tex. 2002). [N/R]
298:156 Washington state and county reach $5.5 million settlement with family of man stabbed outside ballgame by former prisoner released from county jail eleven days earlier despite hospital's recommendation that he be civilly committed as dangerous to others. Stevenson v. State of Washington, No. 98-2-09351-OSEA (Super. Ct., King Co., Wash., May 16, 2001), reported in The National Law Journal, p. A12 (June 11, 2001).
292:61 N.Y.C. was not liable for escaped prisoner's shooting and injuring of a man who attempted to subdue him during a bar robbery; even if city had knowledge of prisoner's violent propensities and tendency to escape, there could be no liability without a "special relationship" to the plaintiff based on prior contact or assurances of protection. Kiernan v. City of New York, #QDS: 22703794, Supreme Court, N.Y. County, Judge Stallman, reported in New York Law Journal, Jan. 19, 2001.
290:26 Washington state Dept. of Corrections reaches $8.8 million settlements in lawsuits alleging failure to adequately supervise paroled rapist who then raped and killed one woman and slashed another woman's throat, leaving her for dead; correctional employees allegedly missed numerous required contacts with former prisoner. Schultz, Underdahl v. State of Washington Dept. of Corrections, Nos. 99-2-20537-5-KNT, 99-2-20542-1 (Super. Ct., King Co. Washington), reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p. A29 (Jan. 19, 2001).
294:92 State of Washington was not liable for assault on woman by prisoner out in "community custody"; community corrections officer may have been negligent in investigating purported prior violations by prisoner, but not "grossly negligent" as required for liability, since he did conduct some investigation. Kelley v. State of Washington, No. 25254-6-II, 17 P.3d 1189 (Wash. App. 2000).
291:43 Family of 12-year-old girl raped and murdered by escapee from Washington state juvenile group home could sue state, county, and group home operators for damages on claims that escapee should have been in a more secure facility and more adequately supervised because of his past history of burglaries. Jones, Estate of, v. State of Washington, No. 45303-3-1, 15 P.3d 180 (Wash. App. 2000).
289:11 Washington state jury awards $15 million to family and estate of 65-year-old woman repeatedly raped and ultimately murdered by an ex-convict; lawsuit claimed that state correctional officials failed to adequately supervise him after his release and should never have placed him on "minimum management." Couch v. Washington State Dept. of Corrections, No. 99-2-11902-4 (Super. Ct., Pierce Co., Wash.), reported in The National Law Journal, p. A14 (Nov. 27, 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: The jury award reported above came just two months after another Washington state jury awarded $22.4 million against the state to the family of a female motorist killed in a collision with a stolen car driven at 90 m.p.h. through stoplights by a prisoner on supervised release for two felonies. That lawsuit also claimed that correctional officials inadequately supervised the prisoner. Joyce v. State of Washington, No. 99-2-10179-6 (Sept. 1, 2000, Super. Ct., Pierce Co. Wash.), The National Law Journal, p. A18 (October 16, 2000), reported in Jail & Prisoner Law Bulletin, No. 287, p. 172 (November 2000). The state is also appealing that award.
287:172 Washington state jury awards $22.4 million to family of female motorist killed in collision with a stolen car driven at 90 m.p.h. through stoplights by a prisoner on supervised release for two felonies; lawsuit claimed that correctional officials inadequately supervised prisoner. Joyce v. State of Washington, No. 99-2-10179-6 (Sept. 1, 2000, Super. Ct., Pierce Co. Wash.) reported in The National Law Journal, p. A18 (October 16, 2000).
238:157 State of Alaska found liable for almost $2 million for alleged negligent failure to prevent two prisoners from planning and carrying out, with help of outside confederates, mail bombing of house of informant who helped to convict them, resulting in death of his father and severe injuries to his mother; jury awards $11.85 million in damages, but state's percentage of fault fixed at 12%. Kerr v. Alaska, No. 3AN-93- 06531 (Super. Ct., Anchorage, Alaska), The National Law Journal, p. A11 (Feb. 5, 1996).
Oregon Supreme Court holds that state has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent dangerous prisoners from causing harm to others, but did not breach this duty in failing to prevent escape of prisoner who subsequently shot two persons; prisoner's prior crimes had not involved violence. Buchler v. Oregon Corrections Div., 316 Or. 499, 853 P.2d 798 (1993).
Co. and county department of corrections not liable for rape of woman and killing of her boyfriend by arrestee released on his own recognizance pending arraignment; recommendation for such release was protected by judicial immunity, and defendants did not have a duty to supervise arrestee which could be the basis of liability. McKenna v. Edwards, 830 P.2d 385 (Wash. App. 1992).
Warden and parole board members did not owe a duty to victims murdered by prisoner while on parole, despite prisoner's ineligibility for parole, and could not be held liable for the murders under Michigan law; no special relationship existed with murder victims, nor had they relied on any explicit assurances from defendants. Harrison v. Director of Dept of Corr., 487 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. App. 1992).
Woman assaulted by prisoner released rather than held for trial on further pending charges could not recover damages from sheriff who allegedly failed to properly process a request for a hold on the prisoner. Mills v. Duggar, 601 So.2d 634 (Fla. App. 1992).
Sheriff was not liable for escaped convicts' murder of boy's father; keeping prisoners confined was the sheriff's discretionary duty, entitling him to qualified immunity. McQueen v. Williams, 587 So.2d 918 (Miss. 1991).
Alabama sheriff was not liable for mistaken release of prisoner serving a life sentence who committed a robbery after his release; sheriff had sovereign immunity for under state law. Hereford v. Jefferson Co., 586 So.2d 209 (Ala. 1991).
Prison officials were not liable to man attacked and injured by prison inmate picking up trash in residential neighborhood as part of prison work assignment. Vertner v. Gerber, 402 S.E.2d 315 (Ga. App. 1991).
Department of Corrections liable for $32,500 to victims of robbery by escaped prisoner which took place 13 days after escape, based on negligence in preventing escape. Wilson v. Dept. of Public Safety & Corr., 576 So.2d 490 (La. 1991).
Co. was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity for release of inmate who attacked two women, when release of this particular inmate may have exceeded authority of federal court order requiring release of some inmates to remedy overcrowding. Fay v. City of Portland, 804 P.2d 1155 (Or. 1991).
State not liable for murder and sexual assault of child by prisoner released at the end of his sentence; State had no duty to rehabilitate prisoner or warn the public of the release of a dangerous offender. VanLuchene v. State, 797 P.2d 932 (Mont. 1990).
Prison officials could be sued for inmate's rape and murder of child who lived with her prison nurse mother on prison grounds. Swader v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 743 F.Supp. 434 (E.D. Va. 1990).
Correctional officials not liable for escaped convict's robbery thirteen days after escape. Wilson v. Dept. of Public Safety & Corr., 563 So.2d 1251 (La. App. 1990).
State not liable for former inmate's murder of ex-wife, daughter, and unborn fetus based on failure to provide mental health treatment ot him while imprisoned. Melville v. State, 115 Wash.2d 34, 793 P.2d 952 (1990).
District of Columbia officials were immune from liability to estates of murder victims allegedly killed by an escapee from halfway house; no special duty existed towards murder victims. Klahr v. District of Columbia, 576 A.2d 718 (D.C. App. 1990).
Sheriff and jailer not liable to widow of murder victim killed by prisoner they released before expiration of sentence. Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E.2d 902 (Va. 1990).
Sheriff did not violate constitutional rights on basis of alleged rape of woman by prisoner on work release. Dimas v. Co. of Quay, New Mexico, 730 F.Supp. 373 (D.N.M. 1990).
Prisoner on furlough murders ex-wife in front of daughters; $900,000 settlement on suit brought for failure to warn family of release as promised. Bianco v. State of Indiana, settled before filing, July 5, 1989, reported in 33 ATLA L. Rep. 20 (Feb. 1990).
Corrections officials not liable for murder by inmate on weekend release; no reason to suspect inmate would act violently. Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 (Utah, 1989).
Corrections personnel who released inmate under court ordered program to relieve overcrowding were entitled to quasi- judicial immunity for inmate's assault on two women. Fay v. City of Portland, 782 P.2d 182 (Or. App. 1989).
Back to list of subjects Back
to Legal Publications Menu