B.R. v. State, Department of Corrections

144 P.3d 431 (Alaska 2006) · Supreme Court of Alaska · September 29, 2006 · No. S-11438

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court considers whether Alaska's intentional-tort immunity statute bars claims against the Department of Corrections arising from a physician assistant's sexual assaults of an inmate. The court holds that immunity bars claims based solely on the Department's employment-related duties, such as negligent hiring or training of the assailant, but does not bar claims based on an independent protective duty owed to inmates or duties concerning other employees. The court reverses summary judgment and remands for further proceedings, including an opportunity to amend the complaint.

Holdings

  1. AS 09.50.250(3) bars claims against the Department that merely assert breaches of duties arising from its employment relationship with Bullock, such as negligent hiring, training, or supervision of Bullock as an employee.
  2. The Department's special relationship with inmates gives rise to an independent duty to exercise reasonable care for their protection from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable misconduct by a person providing medical care, regardless of that person's employment status.
  3. Complete summary judgment was improper because the complaint potentially alleged that the Department negligently failed to train or supervise employees other than Bullock and failed to protect B.R. under an independent protective duty.
  4. B.R. should be allowed an opportunity to amend her complaint to plead independent protective-duty theories more explicitly.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Alaska's intentional-tort immunity statute, AS 09.50.250(3), bars all claims against the Department of Corrections arising from Bullock's assaults, including negligence claims.
  2. Whether a negligence claim based on a duty independent of Bullock's employment relationship, including the Department's special protective duty to inmates, may proceed despite the intentional-tort immunity statute.
  3. Whether the Department established entitlement to complete summary judgment by addressing all potentially viable independent-duty theories alleged in B.R.'s complaint.
  4. Whether B.R. should be permitted to amend her complaint on remand to plead an independent protective-duty theory more explicitly.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (14)

  • Mechanical Contractors of Alaska, Inc. v. State, Department of Public Safety, 91 P.3d 240, 244 (Alaska 2004)(followed)
  • Alakayak v. British Columbia Packers, Ltd., 48 P.3d 432, 447 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
  • Barry v. University of Alaska, 85 P.3d 1022, 1025-26 (Alaska 2004)(followed)
  • Braund, Inc. v. White, 486 P.2d 50, 54 n. 5 (Alaska 1971)(followed)
  • P.G. & R.G. v. State, Department of Health & Human Services, 4 P.3d 326, 335 (Alaska 2000)(followed)
  • Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988)(followed)
  • Kinegak v. State, 129 P.3d 887 (Alaska 2006)(followed)
  • State, Department of Corrections v. Johnson, 2 P.3d 56, 59-60 (Alaska 2000)(followed)
  • Bembenista v. United States, 866 F.2d 493 (D.C. Cir. 1989)(followed by analogy)
  • Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 758 (5th Cir. 1999)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Alaska Supreme Court