Davis v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 05 May 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78994
• Citation: 149 Mich.App. 249,386 N.W.2d 169
• Parties: Diane DAVIS, Administratrix of the Estate of Lester G. Davis, Deceased, Diane Davis, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 169

386 N.W.2d 169

149 Mich.App. 249

Diane DAVIS, Administratrix of the Estate of Lester G Davis, Deceased, Diane Davis, Individually Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 78994.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 5, 1985.

Decided Feb. 18, 1986.

Released for Publication May 5, 1986.

Small, Clark & Berris, P.C. by Marvin L. Berris and Anne M. Winthrop, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

Cooper & Fink by David H. Fink and Mark J. Zausmer, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and CLULO ^*, JJ.

SHEPHERD, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, Diane Davis, in her individual capacity and as the personal representative of the estate of Lester Davis, deceased filed suit in Wayne County Circuit Court on June 21, 1979, against the City of Detroit after the decedent hanged himself while in police custody. The complaint alleged that the decedent's death resulted from the defective condition of the 11th Precinct holding cell where the decedent was detained and that the police violated the decedent's constitutional rights. On January 23, 1984, after a lengthy trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on her defective building claim, but found no constitutional rights violation. The jury awarded the plaintiff $190,000 which was reduced to $123,500 based on a finding by the jury that decedent had been 35% negligent in his death. The city appeals as of right. We affirm.

I

On June 22, 1976, at approximately 11:15 a.m., Detroit police responded to a radio call that a burglary was in progress at a house owned by the sister and brother-in-law of the decedent, Lester Davis. Officer Krantz testified that after he arrived at the house he saw the decedent run out of the front door and onto the porch. Police found various items outside the house and arrested the decedent for breaking and entering. After decedent was arrested, he was identified to the police by his niece, Theresa Whitlow, whose parents own the house which the decedent was burglarizing. Officer Krantz testified that Whitlow informed him that the decedent was a "junky" and implored him to place Davis in jail. Krantz admitted that he did not check Davis's arms for needle track marks and he did not pass the information on to other police officers. Krantz also testified that he had previously arrested hundreds of junkies and that he did not notice that decedent had any of the usual signs typical of intravenous drug users.

Decedent was transported to the 11th Precinct for processing and was then placed in a detention cell in the precinct. At about 12:30 p.m., Officer Kovacik made a check of the cellblock area and removed the only other prisoner from his cell to be refingerprinted. When he returned the prisoner, he discovered decedent hanging by his shirt from the crossbars of his cell.

Other police officers who had contact with decedent both immediately after his arrest and at the 11th Precinct testified that they were unaware that decedent was a drug user and that they had not observed any signs of drug use or that decedent needed medical care. Sergeant Yeager, the desk sergeant at the precinct, evaluated decedent on his arrival at the precinct and testified at trial that if decedent had appeared injured, distraught or otherwise in need of medical care he would have been immediately transferred to the hospital.

However, other witnesses testified that there were signs that decedent was a drug addict. Decedent's niece testified that he appeared anxious and was perspiring heavily at the time of his arrest. She further testified that she was familiar with the signs of drug withdrawal and, in her opinion, decedent may have been undergoing withdrawal when arrested. Dwight Smith, the other prisoner in the cellblock, testified that after decedent was put into a cell he started pounding on the walls very loudly, but no police officer responded to the noise. In addition, an officer investigating the death found numerous needle marks on decedent's arms and legs. Although there were no traces of morphine or heroin found in decedent's blood after his death, there were traces of quinine, which is often used to cut heroin but is also present in some soft drinks.

At trial, the defendant objected to the plaintiff's use of the Department of Corrections' Rules for Jails, Lockups and Security Camps as evidence to establish that the holding cells were defective. The city argued that the regulations did not apply to the holding cells at the 11th Precinct. The trial court ruled that plaintiff could use the rules as evidence based on the case of Young v. Ann Arbor, 119 Mich.App. 512, 326 N.W.2d 547 (1982), which held that the department's rules did apply to municipal holding facilities. The plaintiff referred to the rules extensively at trial and the defendant maintained a continuing objection.

The detention facilities at the 11th Precinct consisted of 12 cells, 6 on each side separated by an aisle. The individual cells were constructed of concrete cinderblock on the rear wall and solid steel on the side walls which separate the cells. The front of the cells, including the doorways, were constructed of bars and crossbars. As a result of the structural design of the cell area, an officer could not see what a person was doing in a cell unless he was standing directly in front of that cell. There was no special cell classified as a detoxification cell for holding drug addicts going through withdrawal as required by the Department of Corrections rules. Nor did the precinct have an electronic monitoring system which would have allowed constant surveillance over the cell area. Keeping detained suspects constituted only a small part of the total activity of the precinct. Typically, a suspect would only be detained at the precinct for a few hours while awaiting arraignment or release.

Frank Donley, the Supervisor for Facilities Inspection for the Department of Corrections, was the primary witness offered by the plaintiff to establish that the 11th Precinct was defective. Donley testified that he inspected the lockup facilities at the 11th Precinct to determine if they were in compliance with the Rules for Jails, Lockups and Security Camps promulgated by the Department of Corrections. He found several instances of noncompliance, including no two-way audio communications system to allow for communication between the cell area and the desk, too few exits in case of emergencies, no detoxification cell, exposed steel plates, and inadequate lighting and cell size. Donley further testified that the department's rules provide for the granting of a variance from the rules, but that none was requested by the city. He also noted that drug addicts were more likely to commit suicide while in police custody and that detoxification cells usually prevent such suicides because of continuous visual observation and their special design. According to Donley, a suspect who is anxious, sweating heavily and has needle marks on his arms should be put into a detoxification cell or sent to a hospital.

II

In Young v. Ann Arbor, supra, this Court was called upon to interpret M.C.L. Sec. 791.262; M.S.A. Sec. 28.2322 to determine whether regulations promulgated by the Department of Corrections (department) applied to local penal facilities. Prior to its amendment in 1984, Sec. 62 of the Department of Corrections act provided in relevant part:

"The department shall supervise and inspect local jails and houses of correction for the purpose of obtaining facts in any manner pertaining to the usefulness and proper management of said penal institutions and of promoting proper, efficient and humane administration thereof, and shall promulgate rules and standards with relation thereto; * * *."

The Court in Young ruled that the statute applied to a holding facility maintained by the City of Ann Arbor and therefore it was error not to have instructed the jury on the mandatory applicability of supervisory rules that had been promulgated by the department pursuant to its statutory authority. See 1979 AC, R 791.501 through 791.657. The Court stated:

"We conclude that the Legislature intended to give the department the authority to supervise and inspect all local penal institutions, however specifically designated. We hold that the statutory term 'local jail' was meant to encompass any facility operated by a unit of local government for the physical detention of persons charged with or convicted of a criminal offense. This includes, at least, city and county jails and local lockups." Young, supra, p. 517, 326 N.W.2d 547.

The Court further noted that such an interpretation was only reasonable because, otherwise, persons who are merely detained temporarily while awaiting processing would be afforded less protection than inmates convicted of criminal offenses who are confined in lockups. Id., p. 518, 326 N.W.2d 547.

In the present case, the trial court relied heavily on Young in resolving many of the issues raised at trial. The court also instructed the jury based on Young and indicated that the department had adopted certain regulations pursuant to statutory authority which the jury should consider in determining whether the city was negligent in the maintenance of its lockup. Rule 791.555 required that a jail or lockup have at least one detoxification cell "designed for detention of chemically impaired persons during the detoxification process". In this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court should not have relied on Young and makes numerous arguments concerning the proper interpretation of the department's enabling legislation, most of which arguments were rejected in Young.

Initially, defendant asserts that in Section 4 of the Department of Corrections act, the Legislature explicitly limited the department's jurisdiction to post-conviction correctional facilities. Section 4 grants exclusive...