The N.C. Supreme Court has ruled that families of inmates killed in a fire at the Mitchell County Jail may sue the state for failing to adequately inspect the lockup.
The decision is significant because it marks the first time N.C. courts have allowed a lawsuit for an alleged failure by the state or a local government to provide protection to an individual.
On May 3, 2002 eight inmates died in a fire at the Mitchell County Jail. The estates of five of them and an injured inmate sued the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Facility Services for failing to adequately inspect the jail. The division’s Jails and Detention Services arm is charged with inspecting local jails. The plaintiffs contend that inspectors failed to detect serious safety problems in an attached wooden storage building, where the fire started.
The N.C. Industrial Commission and the N.C. Court of Appeals both determined that plaintiffs could sue the state. DHHS challenged the determination before the high court.
“The issue before us is whether the public duty doctrine bars plaintiffs’ negligence claims against DHHS,” Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson wrote for a five-justice majority of the N.C. Supreme Court.
“Because plaintiffs allege facts sufficient to support the determination that a special relationship exists between the inmates and DHHS, we hold that the special relationship exception applies, and plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the public duty doctrine,” the justice wrote.
Ordinarily, an individual can’t sue the state or a local government for failing to provide protection. In a 1991 case, Braswell v. Braswell, the N.C. Supreme Court adopted the public-duty doctrine: “a municipality and its agents act for the benefit of the public, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals.”
The Supreme Court in Stone v. North Carolina Department of Labor in 1998 extended the doctrine to cover state government and functions other than law enforcement. That case arose out of a fire in which 25 employees were killed at a Hamlet chicken processing plant later determined to have had numerous serious safety violations. The plant had never been inspected by the N.C. Department of Labor in its 11 years of operation. The high court rejected a lawsuit against the state for failing to inspect the plant, finding the General Assembly hadn’t created “a duty upon this agency to each individual worker in North Carolina,” but rather imposed a generalized duty to protect the safety of the public.
The court did recognize in Braswell possible exceptions involving a special relationship between an injured party and the police or if the police had specifically promised protection to an individual and then did not provide it. State courts had not previously found such a duty or relationship to exist in practice.
What made this case different to the Supreme Court majority was the wording of state statues and regulations detailing the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Human Services. N.C. General Statue 153A-222 states:
“Department personnel shall visit and inspect each local confinement facility at least semiannually. The purpose of the inspections is to investigate the conditions of confinement, the treatment of prisoners, the maintenance of entry level employment standards for jailers and supervisory and administrative personnel of local confinement facilities as provided for in G.S. 153A-216(4), and to determine whether the facilities meet the minimum standards published pursuant to G.S. 153A-221. The inspector shall make a written report of each inspection and submit it within 30 days after the day the inspection is completed to the governing body and other local officials responsible for the facility. The report shall specify each way in which the facility does not meet the minimum standards. (Emphasis in decision.)
State regulations stipulate that within 30 days of receiving a report, the secretary “shall determine whether conditions in the jail jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health or welfare of its inmates.” If that is the case, the department “shall notify the local officials responsible for the jail” and “shall order corrective action, order the jail closed, or enter into an agreement of correction with local officials.”
The use of the word “shall” was of special importance to the Supreme Court.
“It is well established that the word ‘shall’ is generally imperative or mandatory,” Justice Timmons-Goodson wrote.
“Thus, a special relationship exists between DHHS and the inmates because DHHS has a statutory duty to inspect jails to ensure their compliance with minimum standards for fire safety. The duty arises out of concern for the health and welfare of particular individuals — here, the inmates. The special relationship exception also applies to the facts of the instant case because of the relationship between the State and inmates by reason of the inmates’ inability to care for themselves.”
Chief Justice Sarah Parker and Justice Edward Brady dissented from the majority holding, finding that the legislature never intended for DHHS oversight responsibility to constitute a special duty.
“While statutory language is a useful guide to determine the existence of a ‘special relationship,’ the ‘special duty’ exception exists only when the claimant shows that an actual promise was made by a State agent,” Parker wrote.
“Plaintiffs have not alleged such a special duty,” she said.
Parker cited the wording of state statues in support of her argument.
“The language of N.C.G.S. § 153A-220, namely, to ‘[c]onsult with,’ ‘provide technical assistance,’ ‘[v]isit and inspect,’ ‘advise,’ ‘recommend,’ and ‘[r]eview,’ manifests the General Assembly’s intent that the State merely advise and assist a county in the county’s duty to ensure the security of the confinement center and the safe custody and care of its inmates.”
The case is Multiple Claimants v. NCDHHS.
Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.