 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Natrona County12/31/2003
n the alleged negligence by the county defendants and the murder of O'Brien perpetrated by Graumann. See Anderson v. Two Dot Ranch, Inc., 2002 WY 105, , 49 P.3d 1011, (Wyo. 2002) (This Court found it significant that defendants did not take any affirmative steps to increase the likelihood of harm.).
The estate also has not alleged facts sufficient to show a special relationship between O'Brien and the county defendants. The estate has not alleged that any employee of the county defendants had knowledge of O'Brien or that he was in jeopardy should Graumann escape. Moreover, the estate has not alleged that Graumann knew O'Brien before meeting him on or about September 12, 1999. Accordingly, there is simply no connection between the county defendants' alleged negligence and the unfortunate death of O'Brien.
3. Certainty of Injury
Without question, Graumann murdered O'Brien. However, it is unclear how this fact can militate in favor or against the existence of a duty. Firmly established Wyoming law makes it clear that the occurrence of an injury does not create liability. See Anderson v. Duncan, 968 P.2d 440, 443 (Wyo. 1998); see also Vasquez v. Wal-Mart Stores, 913 P.2d 441, 443 (Wyo. 1996). It necessarily follows that using the occurrence of an injury to establish the existence of a duty is inconsistent with basic tenets of Wyoming negligence law.
4. Moral Blame Attached to the County Defendants' Conduct
No moral blame attaches to the county defendants for the unfortunate death of O'Brien. Society requires that criminal offenders, both violent and nonviolent, be incarcerated in local jails and prisons. One of the unfortunate risks associated with operating a penal system is that prisoner escapes may occur. As stated in Solano, 985 P.2d at 55, "some risk to the public is a consequence of balancing society's needs against the practical realities of operating a penal system."
It is interesting to note that had this escape occurred at the Wyoming State Penitentiary (WSP), the State of Wyoming would have immunity under the WGCA, as correctional officers at the WSP are not "peace officers" for purposes of the WGCA. This fact is significant to the consideration of moral blame attributable to the county defendants herein. It is highly unlikely the Wyoming legislature would grant the WSP immunity for conduct which is repugnant to the morals of society. By extension, one must reason that an escape from county detention, while unfortunate, does not warrant an imposition of moral blame.
5. Policy of Preventing Future Harm
It is clear that nobody wants to see an incident like the one which gave rise to this lawsuit. However, the policy of preventing future harm must be balanced with the practical realities of operating a penal system. "Short of keeping prisoners in a locked down status, the [county] defendants could not guarantee that some prisoners would not commit a violent act given the opportunity." Solano, 985 P.2d at 55.
This Court has recognized the inequities associated with unrealistic expectations. In Anderson v. Two Dot Ranch, this Court noted that " reventing future harm can only be fully assured through physically restraining livestock from wandering across roads by fencing them." Anderson, (discussing the open range doctrine). The pragmatic approach employed by this Court in Anderson applies equally to the relevant policy considerations in this case.
6. Extent of the Burden on Defendant
Prisoner escapes in Wyoming are very few and far between. Nonetheless, the burden from imposition of a duty upon the county defendants would be substantial. Graumann k
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|