Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler
| Decision Date | 05 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | 34887. |
| Parties | PFANNENSTIEL v. DOERFLER et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
On defendants' demurrers, all well-pleaded allegations of petition were required to be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
In action against sheriff and two deputies for injuries allegedly received by plaintiff in connection with his arrest and incarceration, allegations that the two deputies, one of whom was also a constable, assaulted plaintiff while making arrest in capacity as peace officers, stated cause of action against sheriff for misconduct of deputies, notwithstanding return on writ authorizing arrest was signed by one of deputies as constable.
Sheriffs are responsible for acts of their deputies performed or committed in discharging their official duties. Gen.St.1935 19-805.
The failure or refusal of a sheriff or other officer having official custody of a prisoner to provide or to make effort to provide medical attention plainly and urgently needed by the prisoner constitutes failure to discharge faithfully and with humanity the statutory duties imposed upon the sheriff or other officer, for which failure prisoner may recover. Gen.St.1935, 19-1919.
In action against sheriff and deputies for injuries allegedly received by plaintiff in connection with his arrest and incarceration, wherein plaintiff alleged assault by deputies who arrested plaintiff and delivered him to sheriff whom plaintiff alleged failed to provide necessary medical attention, there was no misjoinder of actions as to sheriff since petition recited single chain of events resulting in the alleged injuries, and since, even if misconduct of deputies constituted one cause of action and failure to provide medical care another, sheriff could be held liable on both causes of action. Gen.St.1935, 19-805, 19-1919.
In action for injuries allegedly received by plaintiff in connection with his arrest and incarceration, where complaint was sufficient to state cause of action against sheriff, it also stated cause of action against surety on sheriff's bond, notwithstanding complaint contained no allegation of fraud, deceit, or oppression in connection with the incarceration of plaintiff. Gen.St.1935, 19-802.
Under statute, surety on sheriff's bond is liable not only for proper handling of funds and delivery of papers and property to successor in office, but also for faithful performance and execution of the duties of the office, including the making of arrests and care of prisoners. Gen.St.1935, 19-802.
On defendants' appeal from judgment overruling demurrers to petition in action against sheriff and deputies for injuries allegedly received by plaintiff in connection with his arrest and incarceration, whether plaintiff was assaulted and injured by deputies as alleged, and whether plaintiff needed medical attention when brought to jail and whether sheriff made effort to provide it, and whether failure to receive medical care aggravated injury, were not questions for determination by reviewing court but were questions for trial court.
1. Sheriffs are responsible for acts of their deputies performed or committed in discharging their official duties.
2. Failure or refusal of a sheriff or other officer having official custody of a prisoner to provide or to make effort to provide medical attention plainly and urgently needed by the prisoner constitutes failure to discharge faithfully and "with humanity" the duties imposed upon him.
3 The record is examined in an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered in connection with plaintiff's arrest and incarceration in the county jail, and it is held that the petition states a cause of action against appellants, the sheriff and the surety on his official bond, and that their demurrer thereto was properly overruled.
Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; C. A. Spencer, Judge.
Action by Joe B. Pfannenstiel against Joseph Doerfler, the American Surety Company of New York, and others, for injuries allegedly received by plaintiff in connection with his arrest and incarceration in county jail. From a judgment overruling defendants' demurrers to the petition, the two named defendants appeal.
J. H Jenson, Paul Ward, and Ernest J. Malone, all of Hays, and Clifford Holland, of Russell, for appellants.
Delmas Haney, of Hays, for appellee.
In an action for damages plaintiff alleges personal injuries received in connection with his arrest and incarceration in the county jail. The defendants are the two officers who arrested him, the sheriff and their respective bondsmen. All defendants demurred to the petition, and all demurrers were overruled. From which order the sheriff and the surety company which issued his official bond bring this appeal.
Plaintiff Pfannenstiel was arrested under a warrant charging disturbance of the peace, issued by a justice of the peace of Ellis county, and directed "to the sheriff or constable of Ellis county". He was taken in custody by officers Leiker and Shook, and delivered to the sheriff, Doerfler, at the county jail.
Formal averments of the petition need not be noted, no attack upon their sufficiency being made. After recital that Leiker and Shook were deputy sheriffs, and that Leiker was also a constable, it was alleged in the petition that acting "in their capacity as peace officers" and in discharge of their official duties "and in accordance to a warrant issued out of the justice court" they "arrested this plaintiff and in so doing said defendants, wrongfully, willfully, maliciously and negligently used more force than was reasonably necessary to accomplish such arrest in the following particulars, that is to say: The said defendants forcibly seized the plaintiff and without giving the plaintiff any warning of their intention as so to do, said defendant Fidalis A. Leiker, discharged into, upon and against the face and eyes of this plaintiff one certain tear-gas gun at close range and within about six inches of the face and eyes of plaintiff, causing the gunpowder and gas discharged from said gun to strike the plaintiff's face and eyes with such force that the powder and wadding from said gun entered and was embedded into the skin of the plaintiff's face and eye balls of the plaintiff, and the tear-gas contained in said gun forcibly struck and entered the eyes of said plaintiff and by said means and in said manner the said defendants, Fidalis A Leiker and Clifford O. Shook, seriously injured both eyes of plaintiff and thereupon as a part of the same transaction and while the plaintiff was suffering great pain as a result of the injury to his eyes and as a result of the premises aforesaid and while the plaintiff was in a greatly weakened semi-conscious condition from the effects of said injury, the said defendants forcibly and maliciously and against the will of the plaintiff delivered plaintiff to Joseph Doerfler, sheriff, of Ellis county, Kansas, and said sheriff, Joseph Doerfler, incarcerated the plaintiff in the jail of Ellis county, Kansas, for a period of more than three hours during which period of time plaintiff to the knowledge of said defendants, was greatly in need of medical care and attention as a result of the injury above described, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Wabaunsee
...Specifically, the Mt. Carmel court cited two cases: Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442, 497 P.2d 265 (1972), and Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479, 105 P.2d 886 (1940). In Levier, 209 Kan. at 445–48, 497 P.2d 265, this court recognized the duty to provide a prisoner with medical care arose ......
-
Thomas v. the County Commissioners of Shawnee County
...custody of a prisoner [293 Kan. 223] to treat the prisoner properly, and, as the statute (G.S.1935, 19–1919) says, ‘with humanity.’ ” 152 Kan. 479, 483, 105 P.2d, 886 (1940). K.S.A. 19–1919 and these cases “place a positive duty upon [custodians] to furnish medical attention to a prisoner i......
-
Bradford v. Mahan
...a person even when they are engaged in a governmental function. (Peters v. City of Lindsberg, 40 Kan. 654, 20 P. 490; Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479, 105 P.2d 886; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259, 294 P.2d 228; and Anno: Police-Liability for Injury, 60 A.L.R.2d 873, §§ 3, It is nex......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. P.L. Dodge Foundations, Inc.
...Mt. Carmel Medical Center v. Board of County Commissioners, 1 Kan.App.2d 374, 566 P.2d 384 (1977) (same). See Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479, 105 P.2d 886 (1940). Nebraska agrees that counties have a common law duty to pay for the medical costs of only those prisoners who are unable......