You are here: / / County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults...
,

County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults by Other Inmates

The Fourth Department explained the law concerning when a municipality may be liable for an assault by one inmate (in county jail) upon another.  The court also noted that, absent a local law to the contrary, the county may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the county sheriff or sheriff’s deputies:

We agree with plaintiff … that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion and dismissing the complaint in its entirety on the ground that it owed no duty of care to plaintiff, who was being held in jail on a pending criminal charge at the time of the assaults. It is well settled that “[a] municipality owes a duty to inmates in correctional facilities to safeguard them from foreseeable assaults [by] other inmates” … . “[T]his duty does not render the municipality an insurer of inmate safety, and negligence cannot be established by the mere occurrence of an inmate assault . . . Rather, the scope of the [municipality’s] duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable’ ” … . We therefore modify the order… by … reinstating that part of the first cause of action alleging that defendant breached the duty it owed to plaintiff to protect him from foreseeable assaults committed by other inmates. Villar v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02229, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL WITH A CO-DEFENDANT REQUIRING TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR A MORE FAVORABLE SENTENCE; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (F0URTH DEPT).
SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).
TEACHER’S LAWSUIT AGAINST STUDENTS ALLEGED INTENTIONAL, NOT NEGLIGENT, CONDUCT AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SITTING ON THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR WHEN HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DRINKING, BY THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED (FOURTH DEPT).
RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Hockey Player Assumed Risk of Having His Bare Foot Stepped on in the Locker... Garage Not Used Exclusively for an Exempt Purpose Not Entitled to Tax Exemption/Supreme...