 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JACKSON v. S.C. DEPART. OF CORRECTIONS12/11/1989
Heard Nov. 15, 1989.
Decided Dec. 11, 1989.
This is an action for The administrator of the estate of Stroman W. Jackson brought suit against the South Carolina Department of Corrections after Jackson, an inmate, was killed by another inmate while incarcerated at Kirkland Correctional Institution. The jury found for Jackson on both causes of action. The department moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court granted. Jackson appeals, We reverse and remand.
Jackson, an 88 year old inmate, was stabbed and killed by Wilson Atkinson, also an inmate, while the two were incarcerated at Kirkland. Atkinson, who has been diagnosed as schizophrenic and sociopathic, has a long history of violent behavior. This history includes attacks on inmates and correctional officers and the killing of another inmate. Prior to Atkinson's transfer to the general population at Kirkland in October, 1984, he had been incarcerated in the maximum security facility at the Central Correctional Institution (C.C. I). On November 5, 1984, Atkinson killed Jackson,
Section 15-78-60(25) of the Tort Claims Act states:
The governmental entity is not liable for a loss resulting
from responsibility or duty including but not limited to
supervision, protection, control, confinement, or custody
of any . . ., inmate, . . ., except when the responsibility or
duty is exercised in a grossly negligent manner.
Therefore if the Department was grossly negligent in its duty to control, confine, or maintain custody of Atkinson and this negligence proximately caused Jackson's death, its immunity from liability under the Act is waived.
A defendant is guilty of gross negligence if he is so] indifferent to the consequences of his conduct as not to give slight care to what he is doing. Anderson v. Ballenger, 166 S.C. 44, 164 S.E. 313 (1932). Gross negligence
In deciding a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence and all reasonable inferences which are to be drawn from it must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Melton v. Williams, 281 S.C. 182, 314 S.E.2d 612 (Ct. App. 1984). If there is any evidence which could support the jury's finding of gross negligence against the Department, then the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been denied.
The following evidence regarding Atkinson was presented to the jury. In October of 1978, Atkinson was described by a Department psychological evaluation as having strong psychopathic patterns, being unpredictable, and being prone to violent outbursts. The evaluation recommended against placement at Kirkland. In February of 1979, Departmental records indicated that the Maximum Security Center at C.C.I. WAS THE ONLY PLACEMENT FOR ATKINSON. ON AUGUST 5, 1983, the Department declared Atkinson a threat to the normal and safe operation of C.C.I. He was, in fact, placed in the Maximum Security Center in August of 1983 and was not released until after June 5, 1984. Atkinson had thirteen disciplinary violations at C.C.I. in a ten year period, one of which involved killing another inmate. He had been in possession of weapons which he used to rob other inmates. The Department knew all of these facts when it transferred Atkinson to Kirkland. Atkinson was transferred in a routing manner less than two months after his release from the Maximum Security Center at C.C.I.
Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to Jackson, the jury reasonably could have determined that Atkinson's transfer exhibited a conscious indifference to the threat he posed to the safety of other inmates at Kirkl
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|