 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts v. State6/21/1999
Argued: June 7, 1999
Darryl Roberts appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) in favor of the State and corrections officer Robert Allenwood on Roberts' claims arising from a personal injury suffered while he was an inmate at the Maine Correctional Center. On appeal, Roberts contends that the court erred in (1) entering summary judgment for the State and Allenwood on immunity grounds on all but one claim, and (2) granting judgment for the State after a non-jury trial on the remaining claim. We affirm the judgment.
The facts alleged in the complaint are as follows: On September 8, 1994, Roberts was an inmate at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham. Allenwood, the guard on duty that evening, after an argument with Roberts about the use of the telephone, ordered Roberts to return to his cell and "lock up." As Roberts entered his cell, he reached behind him with his left hand to close the door, which did not close smoothly. Allenwood then slammed the door shut with a great deal of force, and Roberts' left index finger was caught between the door jam and the door. The tip of Roberts' left index finger was severed as a result.
Roberts alleged that the State is liable for Allenwood's actions as his employer and that the State was negligent in failing to (1) establish procedures to be followed by guards when returning an inmate to his cell and shutting the door; (2) maintain the door in a safe condition; and (3) obtain proper prompt medical treatment for Roberts. The complaint also sought damages from Allenwood, alleging that he was negligent and reckless.
The State and Allenwood filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued that Allenwood, and thereby the State, as Allenwood's employer, were immune from liability for his actions because Allenwood was performing a discretionary function in locking Roberts in his cell. The State also contended that it was immune from liability under the Maine Tort Claims Act for not having a policy regarding the lock up of prisoners. The State argued that Roberts could not pursue the medical treatment and negligent maintenance claims because they were not included in the notice of claim. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1)(B), (4) (1980 & Supp. 1998). Roberts argued that the State and Allenwood were not immune from liability under the MTCA.
The court granted summary judgment for the State and Allenwood on all claims except the claim of negligent maintenance of the door. The court concluded that Allenwood was exercising the discretionary function of supervising a prisoner when he locked Roberts into his cell and, therefore, both Allenwood and the State came within the immunity for discretionary functions. See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8104-B(3), 8111(1)(C) (Supp. 1998). Although Roberts argued that Allenwood was operating a public building when he shut the cell door, see id. § 8104-A(2), the court found that the focus of Allenwood's action was the supervision of a prisoner and not the operation of a part of a building. Following a bench trial on the claim of negligent maintenance of the door, the court granted judgment for the State.
I. DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION IMMUNITY
Roberts appeals from the grant of the summary judgment. A summary judgment is appropriate when a defendant is immune from tort liability, and we review a summary judgment de novo for errors of law. See Grossman v. Richards, 1999 ME 9, § 3, 722 A.2d 371, 373; Erskine v. Commissioner of Corrections, 682 A.2d 681, 685 (Me. 1996).
Section 8111(1) of the MTCA grants immunity from liability to governmental employees who are performing a discretionary function:
"Notwit
Page 1 2 3 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|