Slaven v. City of Salem
386 Mass. 885, 438 N.E.2d 348 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jailor's duty to protect a prisoner from self-harm arises only when the jailor knew or had reason to know of the prisoner's suicidal tendencies.
Facts:
- On May 19, 1979, Officer James M. Driscoll arrested Joseph Fitzgibbons for open and gross lewdness.
- At the police station, Fitzgibbons made two phone calls, one to his sister, the plaintiff.
- Officer Driscoll then asked Fitzgibbons to empty his pockets and placed him alone in a cell.
- At approximately 4:30 p.m., the plaintiff visited Fitzgibbons in his cell and observed that he was wearing a belt.
- The plaintiff agreed to help her brother raise bail and said she would return later.
- At approximately 5:30 p.m., Officer Charles Bergman found Fitzgibbons hanging from a bar on the cell door by his belt.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, as administratrix of her brother's estate, sued the city in Superior Court under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.
- The city filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court judge granted the city's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- The plaintiff appealed the Superior Court's order.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the appeal to itself on its own motion before it was heard by an intermediate appellate 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 a city have a legal duty to prevent a prisoner's suicide when its police officers neither knew nor had reason to know of the prisoner's suicidal tendencies?
Opinions:
Majority - Liacos, J.
No, a city does not have a legal duty to prevent a prisoner's suicide when its officers have no knowledge of the prisoner's suicidal risk. The court, adopting the principle from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, held that a jailor's duty to protect an inmate from self-inflicted harm is not absolute. This duty is only triggered when the custodial officials know or have reason to know that the prisoner poses an unreasonable risk of harm to themselves. In this case, the plaintiff failed to present any specific facts to contradict the police officers' affidavits stating they were unaware of Fitzgibbons's suicidal tendencies. Without establishing this essential element of duty, the plaintiff's negligence claim cannot proceed, making summary judgment for the city appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a jailor's duty of care in Massachusetts regarding inmate suicide, aligning state law with the prevailing view in other jurisdictions. It establishes that the duty is not one of strict liability but is contingent upon the jailor's actual or constructive knowledge of a specific suicidal risk. The ruling places a significant evidentiary burden on plaintiffs, requiring them to produce specific facts demonstrating that officials were on notice of the inmate's suicidal state to survive a motion for summary judgment. Future cases will require plaintiffs to move beyond mere allegations and provide concrete evidence of the defendant's knowledge to establish a breach of duty.
