Harris v. State

Citation118 N.J.Super. 384,288 A.2d 36
PartiesFrank W. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Decision Date01 March 1972
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Edelstein & Edelstein, Asbury Park, for appellant (Benjamin Edelstein, Asbury Park, on the brief).

George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., for respondents (Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Daly D. E. Temchine, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).

Before Judges CONFORD, MATHEWS and FRITZ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRITZ, J.A.D.

Plaintiff was a prisoner confined in maximum security detention at Hahway State Prison when he was assaulted in his cell by a fellow prisoner and badly injured. He sues the State of New Jersey and the individual defendants on the theory that they were negligent in their respective duties to prevent others from injuring him and in their failure to exercise the required care in 'the hiring and supervision of proper and competent help' proximately resulting, he claims, in these injuries. Defendant Pinto is the superintendent, Olden the deputy keeper, and Rafferty the wing keeper of the prison wing involved. Summary judgment in favor of defendants was entered on motion before trial, and plaintiff appeals.

All parties were deposed and certain other documentary evidence was available to the trial judge at the time of the motion. Giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt with respect to the facts and allowing him all reasonable inferences, as we must for the purposes of a motion for summary judgment, we find the facts to be as follows. 1

On the morning of April 6, 1967 plaintiff returned to his cell from mess. Another prisoner, who had previously solicited plaintiff's participation in sexual activities and was refused, had gained access to plaintiff's cell, was lying in wait, and with the use of a reamer apparently appropriated from the machine shop where the assailant worked, inflicted serious injuries upon plaintiff. While plaintiff and assailant were domiciled in the same wing, plaintiff's cell was on the fourth tier and the assailant's cell was on the second tier. Visiting between tiers is forbidden. An inmate may go to a location different from one at which he belongs only upon the issuance of a pass for a legitimate reason. In this respect, the following instructions are abstracted from the Manual of Operations and Procedures promulgated by the Division of Correction and Parole of the Department of Institutions and Agencies for the New Jersey State Prison at Rahway.

Counts are a continuous process in a maximum security institution, and officers are expected to be aware of who and what groups are in their cells, and where they should be if out of their cells. This awareness should be with him at all times.

Inmates are not to be permitted to visit from cell to cell, tier to tier, or wing to wing. If an inmate has a problem that makes it necessary for him to see or talk to another inmate, locking in a different location, and if, in the officer's opinion, his request warrants immediate attention, the officer will advise the Center Keeper. If the Center Keeper approves, both inmates will be brought together in the Center.

The rules are also illuminative with regard to the weapon which was used:

A record will be kept of all tools in the shop and the NAME and NUMBER of the inmates using a certain tool will be listed. The inmate will be held responsible for the tool issued to him until he returns same at the end of the working period--or whenever it is necessary for him to leave the shop. If a tool discrepancy is discovered, shop instructor or officer shall immediately contact the Shop Marshall. Tools will be issued ONLY to inmates who are approved to use such tools.

Upon completion of the morning and afternoon work periods, after all tools have been checked in and found to be correct, the instructor or officer will answer the bell from the Center with one ring, signifying the return of the inmates to the housing units.

In addition to regulation by procedures set up to prevent the presence of inmates in cells or tiers in which they do not belong, deposition testimony of the individual defendants acknowledged a responsibility for the safety, care and custody of the inmates. Superintendent Pinto testified, for instance, that 'escorts' shepherding the prisoners from place to place within the prison walls should be aware of where the prisoners' cells are, at least as far as the housing unit's escorts are concerned. The superintendent expressed the hope that the keeper at the resident location would know the inmates, but added that he could not be certain of this 'because we have new officers from time to time who naturally would not know the inmates, unfortunately.' It would appear that Rafferty, responsible for the wing involved at the time of this incident, was a relief man and not there on permanent assignment. He knew plaintiff by sight. He did not know the assailant. He did not see the assailant go into plaintiff's cell.

Deputy keeper Olden testified to an assumption that 'all of the inmates in a maximum security institution were somewhat emotionally disturbed or somewhat had a pension (Sic; penchant) for, let's say, psychopathic activity.' We observe in passing that the presence of homosexuality in the prisons of this country, more often than not with concomitant violence, is brought to our attention too often to be either ignored or disparaged.

There is no evidence suggesting that the assailant was particularly known to be of a violent nature, nor is there any evidence that defendants knew or had reason to know of the prior relationship, adverted to above, between plaintiff and the assailant.

At the outset we affirm the judgment in favor of the State of New Jersey on the ground of sovereign immunity. Abrogation of that doctrine in Willis v. Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534, 264 A.2d 34 (1970), was held to be not retroactive absent legislative fiat, and was conditioned by a moratory period to enable the Legislature to act. See N.J.S.A. 52:4A--1 as amended by L.1971, c. 187.

Plaintiff argues that allowance of the Willis claim in a determination that rejects others similarly situated deprives him of the constitutionally safeguarded equal protection of the laws. The short answer to this contention is to be found in Willis where, at 55 N.J. 541, 264 A.2d 37, the court refuses retroactive application and rejects 'other claims in being,' but permits Willis to proceed '* * * for the practical reason that case law is not likely to keep up with the needs of society if the litigant who successfully champions a cause is left only with that distinction.' Incentive ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Chatman v. Hall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 29 Junio 1992
    ...were liable only if their negligence involved active wrongdoing. See Milstrey, supra, 6 N.J. at 412, 79 A.2d 37; Harris v. State, 118 N.J.Super. 384, 288 A.2d 36 (App.Div.1972); Czyzewski v. Schwartz, 110 N.J.Super. 255, 265 A.2d 173 (App.Div.1970); Kisielewiski, supra, 68 N.J.Super. 258, 1......
  • Maule v. Conduit & Foundation Corp.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 2 Julio 1973
    ...as a date when recovery would be allowed, within the discretion of the Legislature. Cognizance is also given to Harris v. State of New Jersey, 118 N.J.Super. 384, 288 A.2d 36 (App.Div.1972, reversed on other grounds 61 N.J. 585, 297 A.2d 561 (1972), wherein the court reversed the granting o......
  • District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 84-1299.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 16 Noviembre 1987
    ...danger of attacks by other inmates. See, e.g., Walker v. United States, 437 F.Supp. 1081, 1083 (D.Or. 1977); Harris v. State, 118 N.J.Super. 384, 288 A.2d 36, 40 (App. 1972); Parker v. State, 261 So.2d 364, 370-71 (La.App. ...
  • Lutz v. Semcer
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 8 Enero 1974
    ...68 N.J.Super. 258, 172 A.2d 203 (App.Div.1961); Czyzewski v. Schwartz, 110 N.J.Super. 255, 265 A.2d 173 (App.Div.1970); Harris v. State, 118 N.J.Super. 384 (288 A.2d 36) (app.Div. It is well established that statutes are to be construed with reference to the common law, and that a statute w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT