Court: Jails must protect inmates from suicide
The Supreme Court issued opinions in one case today: Gregoire v. Oak Harbor, No. 81253-5.
This action for wrongful death was brought by the estate of an inmate who hung himself in the Oak Harbor jail. The question before the court is whether a city can use the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk to defend against a wrongful death action for a jailhouse suicide.
Edward Gregoire, the deceased, exhibited erratic emotional behavior while he was being transported to jail, tried to run, and shortly after being placed in his cell hung himself. Tanya Gregoire, as the personal representative of Gregoire’s estate, sued Oak Harbor for negligence.
The jury found for Oak Harbor after being instructed on the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
Contributory negligence is a defense that while a defendant may have failed in its duty of care, the plaintiff contributed to his injury through his own negligence. Assumption of risk allows a defendant to assert that while a duty of care may have existed toward the plaintiff, the plaintiff assumed voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks inherent in his behavior.
The Supreme Court issued a fractured decision today, reversing the Court of Appeals. The four-vote lead opinion, written by Justice Richard Sanders holds that jailors owe a special duty of care to their inmates, and that jury instructions regarding assumption of risk and contributory negligence are inappropriate in cases of inmate suicide—a new rule for Washington State.
The Court observed the long-standing principle that jailors owe a special duty to inmates, particularly to ensure their health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the legislature has subjected municipal jails to regulation and duties toward inmates. This special-relationship duty extends to self-inflicted harm. Given that Oak Harbor had a nondelegable duty to protect the inmate from himself, the Court determined that both contributory negligence and assumption of risk defenses were inappropriate and that the jury instructions in Gregoire’s case misinformed the jury. The Court sent the case back down for a new trial.
Justice Tom Chambers signed the lead opinion but wrote a separate concurrence clarifying the distinctions between express and implied assumption of risk.
Chief Justice Barbara Madsen concurred with the lead opinion’s assumption of risk analysis, but dissented on the comparative negligence question. “A jail has a duty to provide health screenings and health care if necessary, and to protect an inmate from injury by third parties and jail employees, but it has no freestanding duty to prevent inmate self-inflicted harm. That duty arises only when specifically articulated by law or if the jail affirmatively assumes the inmate’s duty of self-care. Even if this duty arises, it would not necessarily eliminate the inmate’s duty of self-care.”
Justice Gerry Alexander, meanwhile, wrote a separate dissent. “The lead opinion does not mention that the jury in this case never reached the questions of whether Edward Gregoire was contributorially negligent or assumed a risk of harm. In my view, it was unnecessary for the jury to do so because it found that the city of Oak Harbor’s negligence was not a proximate cause of Mr. Gregoire’s death. That being the case, even if we assume that the trial court’s instructions on contributory negligence and assumption of risk were erroneous, their submission to the jury was harmless error.”
