Thomas v. COUNTY COM'RS OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, 262 P.3d 336

Stapleton committed suicide in the Close Observation unit of the Shawnee County Detention Center on November 29, 2002.
Plaintiffs sued Tipton (guard) and Biltoft (assistant shift supervisor), alleging negligent guarding, supervising, and observing Stapleton, along with claims against Gillespie and county officials for training, monitoring, and hiring decisions.
The district court granted summary judgment finding no genuine breach or that KTCA immunity applied.
The Court of Appeals partially reversed, reinstating questions about duty trigger and breach, and sustaining some negligence claims against other defendants while reversing on KTCA immunity in part.
Detention Center policies described suicide prevention, Close Observation, Suicide Watch, and mandatory checks; only mental health professionals could remove inmates from Suicide Watch or Close Observation.
The Kansas Supreme Court held that K.S.A. 19-1919 and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(4) are sources of a custodial duty to protect inmates from self-harm, that genuine issues of material fact exist on trigger and breach, and that the KTCA discretionary function immunity does not bar the claim; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Source and nature of the duty owed to Stapleton	Duty arises from K.S.A. 19-1919 and Restatement § 314A(4).	Duty exists but is limited to general care; discretionary immunities apply if policy governs actions.	Duty recognized under both statutory and Restatement theories.
Whether Tipton and Biltoft's knowledge triggered the duty to protect	Actual/constructive knowledge of risk existed; near-constant risk indicators and statements show trigger.	No prior knowledge of suicidal risk; transfer decisions were disciplinary, not risk-based.	Genuine issues of material fact exist on trigger; summary judgment improper.
Breach of the duty by Tipton and Biltoft	Policy compliance alone does not absolve; evidence of inadequate monitoring and mismanagement shows breach.	Adherence to policy and standard procedures approved; actions were reasonable.	There are material facts about breach; summary judgment inappropriate.
KTCA discretionary function immunity applicability	Discretionary immunity does not apply because there was an independent duty and mandatory guidelines did not preclude liability.	Discretionary function immunity applies to policy-level decisions and discretionary conduct.	Discretionary function immunity does not shield Tipton or Biltoft here; KTCA immunity not applicable.

C.J.W. v. State, 253 Kan. 1, 853 P.2d 4 (1993) ( Restatement § 314A(4) used to identify custodian duty in custody contexts)
Wesley Medical Center v. City of Wichita, 237 Kan. 807, 703 P.2d 818 (1985) (duty to treat prisoners with humanity; statutory basis in 19-1919)
Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479, 105 P.2d 886 (1940) (duty to provide humane treatment and medical attention to prisoners)
Barrett v. U.S.D. No. 259, 272 Kan. 250, 32 P.3d 1156 (2001) (discretionary function exception not applicable where a legal duty exists)
Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 238 P.3d 278 (2010) (framework for applying KTCA discretionary function immunity; independence of duty analysis)
Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567, 861 P.2d 768 (1993) (distinguishes ministerial vs discretionary acts in KTCA context)
P.W. v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 255 Kan. 827, 877 P.2d 430 (1994) (recognized Restatement § 314A as a source of custodian duty)
Estate of Sisk v. Manzanares, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (D. Kan. 2002) (federal prediction that Kansas would impose duty to prevent prisoner self-harm)