Coley v. City of Statesville

• Decision Date: 14 December 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 482,121 N.C. 301
• Parties: COLEY v. CITY OF STATESVILLE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E. 482

121 N.C. 301

COLEY v. CITY OF STATESVILLE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 14, 1897

Appeal from superior court, Iredell county; Coble, Judge.

Action by M. R. Coley, administratrix of the estate of James Coley deceased, against the city of Statesville, to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate, caused by defendant's negligence. The intestate was arrested by the police officers of defendant city for being intoxicated, as claimed by them and placed in prison, where he was found dead three or four hours afterwards. From a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Where the issues submitted are such as enable the parties to present every phase of the contention, no objection thereto can be sustained either for issues submitted or for refusing to submit other or different issues.

The plaintiff tendered the following issues: "(1) Was the death of the plaintiff's intestate caused or accelerated by the unwholesome condition of the prison of the city of Statesville, occasioned by the negligence of the said city to provide a prison suitable for the health and comfort of the prisoners? (2) What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained thereby?" In lieu of these issues, the court submitted the following issues: "(1) Was the death of plaintiff's intestate due to the negligence of defendant as alleged in the complaint? (2) What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained thereby?" Plaintiff excepted because the court failed to submit her first issue in terms as above set forth, and the plaintiff excepted to the first issue submitted by the court as above set out.

The defendant prayed for the instructions following, which were given with modifications, and, as modified, are as follows:

"(1) The defendant is not answerable in damages for arrests made by policemen for violations of the ordinances of the town, and for the lawful commitment to prison made under such arrests; and if you find, therefore, that J. P. Coley, the intestate of the plaintiff, was upon the streets or in a public place in the town on the evening of the 12th of June in an intoxicated condition, or in such condition that to all appearances he seemed to be intoxicated, and the town police, having their attention called to his condition, thereupon took the deceased into custody, and carried him to the calaboose, to detain him until sober enough to be taken before the mayor, and discharged according to law, and the said Coley was allowed to remain in the calaboose for this purpose, and, while thus confined, died in the calaboose, the defendant in this case is not liable in damages to the plaintiff, except and unless his death was caused by the condition and defective construction of the calaboose itself.

"(2) When the defendant town, through its policemen, causes the arrest of persons engaged in violating its ordinances, the town is discharging a governmental function,--a duty and power conferred on it by its charter,--and in this respect acts in the same way that the state acts through and by its sheriff when he makes arrests for violation of the state laws; and, in the discharge of these duties and obligations by the town, it does not incur any liability for damages for the negligence or mistake of its policemen.

"(3) If the jury find that J. P. Coley was drunk, openly and publicly, in the town, on the 12th of June, or to all appearances was publicly in a drunken condition, it was the duty of the policeman to arrest him, remove him from public view, and confine him in the city prison until sober, and then carry him before the mayor to answer the charge; and it was not necessary for the policemen to have secured a warrant before he made the arrest and took said Coley into custody; and, for making the arrest under such circumstances, the defendant is not answerable in damages, and the defendant would not be liable to the plaintiff in damages in this case on account of the arrest, even if the policemen had gone to the extent of using violence in making the arrest, or had been careless and negligent in making the arrest and putting the said Coley in prison.

"(4) In order for the plaintiff to maintain her action in this case, it is necessary for her to show to the jury by a greater weight of the evidence that the proximate cause of the death of her husband was the fault of the town in failing and neglecting to properly construct and provide for the town a suitable and necessary calaboose, station house, or prison, and that, owing to such failure on the part of the town, the confinement of her husband in the said town prison was the direct and proximate cause of his death; in other words, that the death of the said Coley would not have happened at the time it did but for the fact that he was put in the town prison, which from its condition and defective construction by the town, its want of ventilation, produced the death of plaintiff's intestate. If you find the condition of the prison did not cause or accelerate the death of Mr. Coley, you will answer the first issue, 'No.'

"(5) But if you find that the defendant town had built a reasonably comfortable police prison for the purposes for which said prison is intended, and supplied and furnished to those who had immediate charge of it those things that were reasonably essential to prevent bodily suffering on the part of prisoners while confined therein, from excessive cold or heat, or hunger, and to reasonably protect their health; and you further find that plaintiff's husband was confined therein by the police of the town, for the reason that they honestly thought that he was drunk,--the plaintiff's action in this case will not lie, and she cannot recover, and you will respond to the first issue, 'No.'

"(6) If the aldermen of the town had provided a police prison as above described, that is, one whose structure and superintendence was such as to secure the health and comfort of the prisoners; and you find that J. P. Coley had been placed in the said prison by the policemen of the town, and that the police had failed, forgotten, or neglected to make use of the means and appliances furnished in the said prison for the reasonable comfort of the said Coley while confined therein, as, for instance, if they had failed to open all the doors and all the windows in such way as to give good ventilation,--in such case the town would not be liable in damages to the plaintiff for this forgetfulness or carelessness of its policemen, unless this carelessness had been made known to the authorities of the town, and they had had notice to prevent the same; and, if you find the facts as above stated, the response to the first issue will be, 'No.' The doctrine is that while the town must provide a suitable police station in which to confine prisoners, and exercise reasonable prudence in selecting suitable men to look after the prison and prisoners confined in it, neither the board of aldermen nor the town is responsible further than this, and the default, if there were any, in the policemen of the town, would not make the town liable for the default of the said policemen.

"(7) If the jury find from the evidence that the said Coley had some disease of the heart, and indulged on the evening of the 12th too freely in the use of spirituous liquors, and thereby caused his own death, and that such disease and use of spirituous liquor was the proximate cause of his death, the plaintiff cannot recover, and the jury will respond to the first issue, 'No.'

"(8) If the jury believe from the evidence that J. P. Coley was diseased in his kidneys, and had some heart trouble, and that on the evening of the 12th he became intoxicated, and thereby brought on syncope or coma, as testified to by the physicians, and that this excessive drinking was the proximate cause of his death, the jury will answer the first issue, 'No.'

"(9) That if the jury find that the death of the said Coley was caused by some

...