James Smallwood v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00276-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Claimant James Smallwood, an inmate at Turney Center, was attacked on August 23, 2013, by fellow inmate Robert Devito and suffered serious head injuries.
- Smallwood sued the State of Tennessee in the Claims Commission alleging negligence in the care, custody, and control of his person and sought damages for his injuries.
- The State admitted the assault and injuries but denied prior knowledge of any threat from Devito and asserted the claim failed for lack of foreseeability and other defenses.
- The State moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting no evidence showed prison officials had prior notice or reason to anticipate the assault.
- The Claims Commissioner treated the motion as one for summary judgment (claimant’s sworn affidavits were considered) and found no evidence of prior notice or incompatible designation between inmates; judgment was entered for the State.
- Claimant’s post-judgment motion raising an alternative theory about the weapon used (rock wrapped in laundry bag) was rejected; appeal followed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State breached a duty by failing to prevent an inmate-on-inmate assault | Smallwood argued the State was negligent in custody/control leading to his injuries | State argued there was no prior notice or reason to anticipate the assault, so no breach | Court held no breach: assault was not foreseeable and summary judgment for State affirmed |
| Whether the instrumentality (rock) made the attack foreseeable | Smallwood later argued that failure to secure potential weapons made the State liable | State maintained foreseeability depends on prior notice of inmate threat, not the availability of common items | Court rejected the weapon-focused theory; foreseeability depends on prior notice of a threat |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexington v. Greenhow, 451 S.W.2d 424 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970) (penal institutions liable only when authorities knew or should have anticipated an attack)
- Parker v. State, 282 So.2d 483 (La. 1973) (duty to prevent foreseeable inmate assaults requires prior notice or reason to anticipate)
- Williams v. Adams, 288 N.C. 501 (N.C. 1975) (same rule regarding foreseeability and prison liability)
- Justice v. Rose, 144 N.E.2d 303 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957) (penal institution not insurer of inmate safety; liability tied to foreseeability)