Liability.

• Position: Bultema v. U.S. - Ciaprazi v. County of Nassau - Hallett v. Morgan - Morris v. Crawford County

27. Liability U.S. District Court Armstrong v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 196 F.Supp.2d 673 (M.D.Tenn. 2002). CONSENT DECREE- Inmates and pretrial detainees brought a class TERMINATION action against a metropolitan government in 1987, alleging that overcrowding in jails was unsanitary and unsafe. The district court issued an injunction and set population caps. The district court granted the government's motion to lift the injunction in 2002, finding that conditions in new jails met the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. The court found that the new jails' environment, sanitation and fire safety complied with the Eighth Amendment, providing adequate levels of personal security for inmates and staff. The court held that food service was adequate and acceptable and that there was adequate physical space available for recreation. The court noted that two of the four jails had achieved accreditation by the American Correctional Association and the other two had applied, and would also probably receive accreditation. The court called the jail administration at the time of the 1987 suit "a brutal and corrupt regime" The court praised the government's correctional experts who assisted the county, and the plaintiffs' counsel "for the enormous service she has performed for the class of plaintiffs and the community." The court complimented the Special Master for his "wise guidance in overseeing the rehabilitation of the Metropolitan Government's jail system." (Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Tennessee) U.S. District Court Bultema v. U.S., 195 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Ohio 2002). A federal prisoner brought an action FEDERAL TORT against the United States under the Federal Tort CLAIMS ACT Claims Act (FTCA), claiming negligence after he fell from an upper bunk bed and severely injured his knee. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the alleged negligence of the prison warden fell within the discretionary function exception of FTCA. The court found that the prisoner's contributory negligence, by failing to tell his unit officer that he was entitled to a bottom bunk, was the proximate cause of his injuries. Prison personnel had medically determined that the prisoner was required to sleep on a bottom bunk, but the warden decided to have the inmate tell unit officers that the had a bottom bunk pass, rather than requiring medical personnel to inform the officers. The court found that the warden's...