Robins v. Harris - 740 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)

Rule:

As a result of an inmate's substantial dependency and the extraordinary control jailers wield over their prisoners, inmates are not precluded from recovering damages from a sheriff for injuries suffered by intentional wrongful acts of jail employees.

Facts:

Appellant Tammy Robins sued appellees, sheriff and county commissioners, alleging she was sexually assaulted by a co-defendant, a jail employee, while incarcerated awaiting trial. The co-defendant admitted to assaulting appellant. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because they were not responsible for the jail employee’s acts and did not breach any duty owed to appellant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees. Appellant challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the sheriff and the county commissioners be held liable for the appellant’s injuries caused by a jail employee? 

Answer:

Yes, with respect to the sheriff. No, with respect to the commissioners.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the grant of summary judgment to appellee sheriff, holding that inmates were not precluded from recovering damages from a sheriff for injuries suffered by intentional wrongful acts of jail employees. According to the court, inmates had almost no autonomy, and were completely dependent on the correctional facility for care. Appellee sheriff and his employees maintained extraordinary control over the minutest details of the prisoner's lives. The court further held that the Indiana Tort Claims Act did not provide immunity to appellee sheriff. Enforcement of law, an immunized act under the Act, did not include activities associated with the administration of pre-trial defenses at a county jail. However, the court held that appellee commissioners were not liable for appellant’s alleged injuries since the commissioners did not have control over appellee sheriff's acts.