 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts v. State6/21/1999
hstanding any liability that may have existed at common law, employees of governmental entities shall be absolutely immune from personal civil liability for the following:"
"C. Performing or failing to perform any discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused; and whether or not any statute, charter, ordinance, order, resolution, rule or resolve under which the discretionary function or duty is performed is valid . . . ."
"The absolute immunity provided by paragraph C shall be applicable whenever a discretionary act is reasonably encompassed by the duties of the governmental employee in question, regardless of whether the exercise of discretion is specifically authorized by statute, charter, ordinance, order, resolution, rule or resolve and shall be available to all governmental employees, including police officers and governmental employees involved in child welfare cases, who are required to exercise judgment or discretion in performing their official duties."
Governmental entities are likewise immune from liability for discretionary functions. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B(3).
We have utilized a four-factor test to determine whether discretionary function immunity applies.
"(1) Does the challenged act, omission, or decision necessarily involve a basic governmental policy, program or objective? (2) Is the questioned act, omission, or decision essential to the realization or accomplishment of that policy, program, or objective as opposed to one which would not change the course or direction of the policy, program, or objective? (3) Does the act, omission, or decision require the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the governmental agency involved? (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or make the challenged act, omission, or decision?" Adriance v. Town of Standish, 687 A.2d 238, 240 (Me. 1996) (quoting Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421, 426 (Me. 1987)).
Relying on the four factors, without going through them in detail, we held, in Erskine v. Commissioner of Corrections, 682 A.2d at 686, that " he management and care of prisoners is a discretionary function." The federal district court, interpreting the Maine Tort Claims Act, came to the same Conclusion in Ellis v. Meade, 887 F. Supp. 324 (D. Me. 1995). In that case the court concluded that a jail guard was carrying out a discretionary function when he slapped a restrained prisoner on the buttocks. See id. at 331.
In applying the four factors to the present case, there can be no dispute that corrections is a basic governmental program and that the supervision of inmates is essential to a corrections program. The supervision necessarily involves the exercise of judgment by corrections officers, including the discretionary decision of when to order an inmate to his cell. That discretionary decision also includes the shutting of a cell door when the prisoner has failed to shut it or the door has failed to shut. Allenwood had the lawful authority to supervise Roberts. See 34-A M.R.S.A. § 3402(2) (1988) (superintendent of Maine Correctional Center "shall supervise and control" prisoners). The four-factor test compels the Conclusion that Allenwood's alleged tortious acts were performed as part of a discretionary function. Therefore, both the State and Allenwood are immune from liability on Roberts' claim that his injury resulted from Allenwood's action in shutting the cell door.
II. NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF CELL DOOR
The trial court agreed with Roberts that there was a factual issu
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.
|
|