 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Crossville v. Haynes8/12/2005
es's claims to the jury for two reasons.
First, Chief Priest was charged with the responsibility of establishing the policies and procedures of the police department and the Crossville city jail, including the manner in which the employees of the police department were trained to supervise, evaluate, and monitor arrestees and prisoners. The establishment of such policies and procedures is within the exercise of the chief of police's judgment in the administration of the department. Acts or omissions dealing with the establishment of such policies or procedures fall within the State-agent-immunity protections discussed in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 2000). See Howard v. City of Atmore, 887 So. 2d 201, 210 (Ala. 2003). The trial court recognized that Chief Priest was protected by immunity and entered a summary judgment in his favor.
However, as recognized in Howard, if a state actor is immune from liability for a particular act or omission, the state or municipality is also immune from liability for the same act or omission. In Howard, this Court addressed a situation almost identical to the one presented here. Howard's sister committed suicide while she was an inmate in the Atmore city jail. Howard sued, among others, the Atmore chief of police, Chief McKinley, asserting that the police chief had negligently failed to train his staff and had negligently failed to implement proper intake and monitoring procedures that would have allowed the jailers and officers to detect her sister's suicidal nature. Howard asserted that Chief McKinley and, thus, the City of Atmore, were liable for the wrongful death of her sister. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Chief McKinley and the City of Atmore. Howard appealed.
The Court held that Chief McKinley was entitled to State-agent immunity under Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 2000), and peace-officer immunity under ยง 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975. The Howard Court stated:
"Howard directs us to no statute, rule, or regulation binding on Chief McKinley that purports to direct him in a particular manner as to the 'administration of department,' or to the training and supervision of its personnel. She merely contends that Chief McKinley's department has failed 'to implement modern penalogical practices such as intake screening forms or processes, removal of potentially lethal means of suicide such as shoe strings and belts (even after recommendations by the [Alabama Bureau of Investigation]),' and, in this respect, has 'lagged behind evolving standards of detention and incarceration.' ... These allegations are based, however, on statistics regarding annual suicide rates from general publications, such as, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prison Suicide: An Overview and Guide to Prevention (1995).
"Thus, there is a conspicuous absence of binding authority as to how to identify and handle a potential suicide risk and what precautions to take in any particular case. In the final analysis, the responsibility falls upon Chief McKinley to formulate suicide-prevention rules for his department, based on a myriad of factors, including the availability of resources and personnel. Category (2) of the Cranman formula expressly contemplates this scenario."
887 So. 2d at 210. Thus, the Court in Howard held that the police chief was protected by State-agent immunity for his failure to implement intake and monitoring procedures that might have detected Howard's sister's suicidal tendencies.
Further, in addressing the claim asserted against the City of Atmore, the Howard Court stated:
"Howard contends that the City is 'vicariously liable for
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|