Sheffield v. Turner
| Decision Date | 23 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 10837,10837 |
| Citation | 445 P.2d 367,21 Utah 2d 314 |
| Parties | d 314 Paul Ray SHEFFIELD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John TURNER, Warden of the Utah State Prison; State of Utah; John Does 1, 2, 3, etc., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Hatch & McRae, Robert M. McRae, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., D. Gilbert Athay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondents.
Plaintiff, Paul Ray Sheffield, an inmate of the State Prison, sued the Warden, John Turner, certain John Does, and the State of Utah, for damages which resulted when plaintiff was stabbed by a fellow prisoner, causing him to lose the sight in one eye. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, plaintiff does not contest the dismissal as to the State of Utah, but does as to the Warden.
In considering the propriety of the dismissal as to the Warden there are two significant facts to be borne in mind: First, the complaint is not based upon any action done by the Warden personally, but upon alleged conduct through his employees; and, second, that it is based only upon negligence, and not upon any wilfully wrong or malicious act. The essence of the complaint is that the Warden permitted his employees to supervise the inmates of the prison in a negligent manner based on these facts: knowledge that the offending inmate, one Bassett, had a propensity for violence; that he was in possession of a sharp metal object like an ice pick; that he was allowed outside of his own designated area; and that he was thus enabled to enter the plaintiff's quarters and inflict injury upon him. Wherefore, he prays judgment against the Warden for $100,000.
The anciently established and almost universally recognized general rule which this court has consistently announced and adhered to is that the government, its agencies and officials performing governmental functions are protected by sovereign immunity. 1 A question arises as to whether this rule is rendered inapplicable here by what is referred to as the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. 2 Sec. 63--30--10 of that Act waives immunity for governmental entities in certain specified circumstances. However, Subsection 10 preserves immunity to such 'entities' when the injury 'arises out of incarceration of any person in any state prison * * *.' Sec. 63--30--2(3) provides that entity 'shall mean and include the state and its political subdivisions as defined herein; * * *.' A political subdivision is defined in (2) as 'any county, city, town, school district, special improvement or taxing district, or any other political subdivision or public corporation: * * *.'
Inasmuch as the statutes just referred to plainly retain sovereign immunity to the state for any injury arising out of incarceration in the prison, the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint as to it. However, it is equally plain that under no reasonable construction of the statute could the Warden be deemed a governmental 'entity.' Thus he is not affected by the retention of immunity and it is necessary to look to the law independent of those statutes to determine the question of his liability.
There can be no question but that the maintenance of a state prison and the keeping of prisoners therein is a necessary auxiliary of government and therefore a governmental function, nor that consequently the performance of the duties incident thereto would normally be protected by the traditional rule of sovereign immunity. 3 In this connection it is appropriate to point out that this does not constitute a carte blanche protection for anything that may be done or permitted in a prison. We are not unmindful of the dangers of abuse and injury which may be inflicted upon persons who are confined with others with a known propensity for violence, nor the necessity for protection of prisoners who could be subjected to multifarious forms of abuse or brutality. We quite willingly agree that they should not be 'thrown to the wolves' without protection, and that some safeguards should be maintained to prevent such abuse or injury.
On the other side of this proposition is the imperative need for those in a supervisory capacity to have reasonable freedom to discharge the burdensome responsibilities of keeping in confinement and maintaining discipline of a large number of men who have been convicted of serious crime. If such officials are too vulnerable to lawsuits for anything untoward which may happen to inmates a number of evils follow, including a breakdown of discipline and the fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeBry v. Noble
...The Court also held that suits against the state were subject to the governmental/proprietary test. See Sheffield v. Turner, 21 Utah 2d 314, 316, 445 P.2d 367, 368 (1968) (operation of state prison held governmental function); White v. State, 579 P.2d 921, 923 (Utah 1978) (operation of Indu......
-
Ross v. Schackel
...for acts done in good faith in the performance of their duties." 121 Utah at 329, 241 P.2d at 909. More recently, in Sheffield v. Turner, 21 Utah 2d 314, 445 P.2d 367 (1968), an inmate brought an action against the warden of the Utah State Prison for injuries he received when a fellow priso......
-
Peoples v. Cca Detention Centers
...malicious conduct before a prison official may be found liable to an inmate for injuries caused by a third party. Sheffield v. Turner, 21 Utah 2d 314, 445 P.2d 367 (1968). Wyoming has yet to address the 9. We recognize that the Supreme Court, in dicta, suggested that the government contract......
-
Lyon v. Burton
...P.2d 1159 (Utah 1996) (prison employee exercising what Court held to be governmental discretion held not liable); Sheffield v. Turner, 21 Utah 2d 314, 445 P.2d 367 (1968) (same); Hjorth v. Whittenburg, 121 Utah 324, 241 P.2d 907 (1952) (state road commissioner exercising discretionary power......