Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 170 Wash. 2d 628

Background

Edward Gregoire was arrested on warrants and transported to Oak Harbor jail, where officers restrained him under volatile and escalating behavior.
Gregoire died by hanging in his jail cell about 30–40 minutes after last seen alive, with suicide discovered via a bed sheet and ventilation grate.
Plaintiff, as guardian ad litem and estate representative, sued Oak Harbor for wrongful death and negligence, among other claims, asserting failure to protect from self-harm.
At trial, the court instructed on assumption of risk and contributory negligence over objection; jury found negligence but not proximate cause of death.
Court of Appeals affirmed; lead opinion holds jailers owe a special duty to inmates and such defenses are inappropriate in inmate-suicide cases.
Remand for a new trial consistent with the opinion to address the proper scope of the jailer’s duty and defenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jailer-inmate special relationship creates a duty to prevent suicide	Gregoire argued special relationship imposes affirmative duty to protect from self-harm.	Oak Harbor contended standard duties do not include preventing self-inflicted harm absent assumption of self-care.	Yes; jailers owe affirmative duty to protect inmates from self-harm.
Whether assumption of risk and contributory negligence defenses apply to jail suicide	Defenses should not apply when jail has protective duty over inmates in suicide context.	Assumption of risk and contributory negligence can allocate fault, consistent with comparative fault principles.	No; these defenses are inappropriate; contributory negligence cannot bar recovery when duty includes self-harm prevention.
Scope and application of the jailer’s special duty in the suicide context	Duty to protect inmates from self-inflicted harm is part of the custodial relationship, not extinguished by inmate actions.	Duty is limited and may be negated by inmate conduct under certain fault frameworks.	Jail has an affirmative duty to protect from self-harm; contributory negligence cannot exonerate the jail.
Prejudice from jury instructions on proximate cause given the defenses	Instructions mixing fault theories may have misled the jury on proximate cause.	Instructions correctly stated defenses and proximate cause concepts within Washington law.	Remand for reconsideration of instructions consistent with the opinion.

Key Cases Cited

Kusah v. McCorkle, 100 Wash. 318 ((1918)) (recognizes jailer's direct duty to prisoner in custody)
Shea v. City of Spokane, 17 Wn. App. 236 ((1977)) (nondelegable duty to provide for prisoner's health under special relationship)
Caulfield v. Kitsap County, 108 Wn. App. 242 ((2001)) (special relationship with inmates; administrative regulations; suicide screening)
Hunt v. King County, 4 Wn. App. 14 ((1971)) (duty to safeguard from self-inflicted harm in hospital context)
Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262 ((1987)) (discussion of duty arising from special relationship; public duty doctrine)
Yurkovich v. Rose, 68 Wn. App. 643 ((1993)) (special relationships and comparative fault)
Pearce v. Motel 6, Inc., 28 Wn. App. 474 ((1981)) (innkeeper-guest duties; comparative negligence applicable)
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County, 615 N.W.2d 61 ((Minn. 2000)) (duty to protect from self-harm; comparative fault not allowed to deny protection)
Sauders v. County of Steuben, 693 N.E.2d 16 ((Ind. 1998)) (all-or-nothing results; custodial suicide not bar to recovery under public policy)
Myers v. County of Lake, 30 F.3d 847 ((7th Cir. 1994)) (custodial suicide; duty to protect; comparative fault context)
Wagenblast v. Odessa School Dist. No. 105-157-166J, 110 Wn.2d 845 ((1988)) (public duty doctrine; when public duties cannot be contracted away)
Webstad v. Stortini, 83 Wn. App. 857 ((1996)) (suicide as volitional, not negligent act)
Christensen v. Royal Sch. Dist. No. 160, 156 Wn.2d 62 ((2005)) (policy-based limits on duty to protect from sexual abuse; public-school context)