Masad v. Weber
772 N.W.2d 144 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State statutory immunity protecting a correctional facility from claims of 'failure to provide sufficient ... personnel ... or services' does not bar a negligence claim alleging that prison employees failed to perform their specific, defined operational duties. To enforce a contract as a third-party beneficiary, a party must show the contracting parties entered into the agreement directly and primarily for their benefit, not that they received a merely incidental benefit.
Facts:
- The South Dakota Department of Corrections contracted with Catering by Marlins, Inc. (CBM) to provide food services for inmates.
- Randall Masad was an employee of CBM, working as a food service director in the kitchen of the South Dakota State Penitentiary.
- Gregory Stephens, an inmate with a documented history of violent assaults on other inmates, was transferred between facilities and placed in disciplinary segregation.
- Prison officials failed to transfer Stephens's institutional file with him, moved him to the general population before his disciplinary segregation sentence was complete, and a transfer hearing was conducted without his file.
- On March 19, 2004, Stephens left his residential unit without authorization, as he did not have a pass and was not assigned to work or school.
- Stephens obtained a kitchen worker's uniform, put it on over his own, and approached the kitchen entrance.
- A control room officer, seeing the uniform, allowed Stephens to enter the kitchen without verifying his identity or authorization.
- Inside the kitchen, Stephens grabbed a four-foot metal stirring whisk and attacked Masad, striking him repeatedly and causing serious, permanent injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Randall and Lori Masad (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the South Dakota Department of Corrections and its employees (State) in a state circuit court (the court of first instance).
- The complaint alleged negligence and loss of consortium, and was later amended to add a breach of contract claim based on a third-party beneficiary theory.
- The State filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that statutory sovereign immunity barred the negligence claims and that Masad was not a third-party beneficiary of its contract with CBM.
- The circuit court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the Masads' claims.
- The Masads (Appellants) appealed the circuit court's decision to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does South Dakota's statutory sovereign immunity, which protects the state from liability for the 'failure to provide sufficient ... services in a prison,' bar a negligence claim alleging that prison employees failed to perform specific, defined duties, resulting in an attack on a contractor's employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Severson, J.
No, statutory sovereign immunity for the failure to provide sufficient services does not bar a claim alleging the negligent performance of specific duties by state employees. The plaintiffs' claims are not based on a failure to provide 'sufficient equipment, personnel, programs, facilities or services' under the immunity statutes (SDCL 3-21-8 and 3-21-9(5)). Instead, the claims assert that state employees negligently performed their existing duties by failing to transfer an inmate's file, failing to ensure he remained in segregation, failing to control his movement, and failing to properly identify him before granting him access to a secure area. The court reasons that interpreting the statutes to bar such claims would render the specific statutory language 'mere surplusage'; if the legislature had intended to grant total immunity for all torts in a prison, it would have done so with broader language. These claims amount to allegations of negligent performance of designated duties, which are distinct from a systemic failure to provide a service. On a separate issue, the court affirmed that Masad was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the State and CBM. The security provisions in the contract were intended to allocate risk and responsibilities between the contracting parties, not to confer an enforceable right upon the contractor's employees. Masad was only an incidental beneficiary, as the contract was not made 'directly and primarily' for his benefit.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of sovereign immunity for correctional facilities in South Dakota by creating a clear distinction between policy-level decisions and operational negligence. It establishes that while the state is immune from suits challenging its resource allocation choices (e.g., the number of guards), it remains liable when its employees negligently fail to perform their specific, defined job functions. This holding exposes the state to greater liability for the day-to-day operations of its prisons and shifts the focus of litigation from the sufficiency of services to the conduct of individual employees. The case reinforces the high threshold for third-party beneficiary claims, requiring explicit contractual intent to benefit a third party.
Unlock the full brief for Masad v. Weber