Matthews v. District of Columbia

• Decision Date: 31 May 1978
• Docket Number: No. 11476.,11476.
• Parties: Theodore Bruce MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

387 A.2d 731

Theodore Bruce MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

No. 11476.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued March 9, 1978.

Decided May 31, 1978.

Douglas J. Adams, Silver Spring, Md., with whom Steven M. Cooper, Silver Spring, Md., was on the brief, for appellant.

David P. Sutton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom John R. Risher, Jr., Corp. Counsel, Louis P. Robbins, Principal Deputy Corp. Counsel, Richard W. Barton, Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Margaret L. Hines, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and KERN and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges.

NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

Appellant, an inmate of Lorton Reformatory, sued the District of Columbia for damages based on alleged negligence in inmate supervision and general prison security which rendered appellant vulnerable to knife attack by unidentified fellow inmates. The jury returned a verdict for appellant and awarded $15,000 in damages. The trial court subsequently granted appellee's motion for judgment n. o. v., and this appeal followed. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in finding: (1) that appellant failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for a jury to find negligence, and (2) that appellant failed to prove that the incident complained of would not have occurred "but for" appellee's negligence. We conclude that appellant failed to establish any negligence on appellee's part (and thus need not reach the proximate causation issue). We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. Appellant was housed at Lorton in one of six dormitories located on the "north walk." The assault upon him occurred at about 8:25 p. m. on September 3, 1973. At the time of the incident, a movie, attended by most of the inmates, was being shown in the gymnasium. Appellant, who had remained behind in his dormitory to study, testified that he was standing by his bed when he was suddenly grabbed from behind by several unidentified inmates. He struggled and called out for assistance for several minutes before suffering severe knife wounds to the lower back.

Prior to the infliction of appellant's injuries, Lorton officials had calculated and determined that at least 51 guards were necessary to provide adequate security during the relevant watch. This level of manpower, denominated the "critical minimum" number of guards required, corresponded to the 51 specific position points established as guard posts. A post in front of each of the six dormitories on the north walk was included in this group of key security vantage points. The only way for a guard to see inside a dormitory was to stand at the front door of the dormitory which contains a floor-to-ceiling window. As a regular practice, guards were reassigned from one of these 51 posts to other assignments, which were not included in the critical minimum, as required by prisoner population movement and manpower needs.

At the time of the attack on appellant, the north walk in front of the six dormitories was being patrolled by two unarmed guards. One guard, noting "a commotion," looked in and signalled with a flashlight to the second guard, who was at the other end of the walk. They apparently awaited reinforcements and did not enter the dormitory until after the assailants had left it. They were unable to identify the attackers because of poor visibility resultant from darkness and dim lights. Inmates were free to come and go to participate in various activities until 10:30 p. m., but it was against regulations for inmates from one dormitory to enter another.

There was no direct evidence, by expert testimony or otherwise, that the practice of reassigning guards from the respective "critical minimum" posts, at such times as the bulk of the inmate population was concentrated in one location, was contrary to sound correctional practices or that the basic design of the security plan itself was flawed.

I

Before reaching the question of appellee's negligence, we must discuss a threshold question raised by appellee. Appellee urges upon us the resolution of an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction — what standard of care shall be required of the District of Columbia in the performance of its duties as custodian of the city's prisoners. Appellee informs us that this issue is a recurring one in this jurisdiction and urges us to resolve it in this case.

Appellee contends that the inherent nature of the prison environment evokes the need for a special standard of care — one referred to as "the prior notice rule." This rule requires that authorities, alerted by some antecedent danger signal, usually stemming from the known violent or dangerous nature of the assailant or known threats to the victim, fail to take adequate precautionary measures despite such notice in order to be held liable for negligence. Although the government cites us to cases discussing this rule, e. g., Parker v. State, 282 So.2d 483 (La.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1093, 94 S.Ct. 724, 38 L.Ed.2d 550 (1973); Harris v. State, 61 N.J. 585, 297 A.2d 561 (1972); City of Lexington v. Greenhow, 451 S.W.2d 424 (Ky.1970); see also Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 1021 (1972), a close and careful reading of those authorities indicates that while making reference to the prior notice rule, the holding in each of those cases is consistent with the application of ordinary negligence standards. For example, in Parker v. State, supra, a case involving a stabbing, the record indicates regular and frequent searches for weapons and specific counselling by the correctional authorities of the two inmates involved concerning their homosexual relationship. The court rejected plaintiff's contention that there was a statutorily created absolute liability and rather analyzed his contentions on a negligence rationale. Further, in Harris v. State, supra, an action against correctional officials individually (the state had not waived sovereign immunity), the court held that there was no showing that ordinary negligence on the part of prison officials had permitted the bludgeoning of the victim by a fellow inmate. 297 A.2d at 565. And in Lexington v. Greenhow, supra, the court specifically reaffirmed its prior holding in Ratliff v. Stanley, 224 Ky. 819, 7 S.W.2d 230 (1928), which stated: "the duty imposed upon a jailer [is] the duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence to prevent unlawful injury to a prisoner placed in his custody. But he cannot be charged with negligence in failing to prevent what he could not reasonably anticipate." Lexington v. Greenhow, supra at 425.

This court, in determining what duty of care is owed by a common-carrier to its passenger, has had occasion to evaluate the continuing validity of special standards of care. In D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Carney, D.C.App., 254 A.2d 402 (1969), we expressly rejected the doctrine of differential duties of care dependent upon the characterization of the relationship between the parties. As we said in that case: "there are no categories of care, i. e., the care required is always reasonable care." Id. at 403.

The generally recognized common law duty owed to prisoners by penal authorities is one of reasonable care in their protection and safekeeping. Gaither v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 333 A.2d 57 (1975) (and cases cited therein at 60). See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 320 (1965). Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (1969) has been held to establish a duty of ordinary diligence as the standard of care to which the U.S. Bureau of Prisons must adhere in safeguarding federal prisoners. Jones v. United States, 534 F.2d 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 978, 97 S.Ct. 487, 50 L.Ed.2d 586 (1976).¹ While we agree that a party cannot be held liable in a negligence action for events which are not foreseeable by the exercise of reasonable diligence, we see no reason to adopt special standards of care applicable to jails or correctional institutions. Thus, we reject the so-called "prior notice" rule and adopt an ordinary negligence standard requiring the exercise of reasonable care by the District of Columbia government, and its agents and employees, in the protection and safekeeping of prisoners. While the government is not an insurer of the safety of a prisoner, it is only proper that the responsible entity or person be held liable where damage proximately results from a failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm.

II

We turn now to the facts of this case.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling the jury's finding of negligence against the District of Columbia. He argues that several factors form a sufficient factual basis from which the jury could make a finding of negligence. First, he alleges that the presence of a guard on duty at the dormitory front door, in a position from which he could see and hear activities within the dormitory and prevent entry by unauthorized inmates, would have had a deterrent effect in this case. Second, appellant claims that the dimmed...