DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Elizabeth de Moll's Summary of "Devlin v. Commonwealth"

Devlin v. Commonwealth
No. 12-P-401

Facts:
On November 1, 1995, the plaintiff was civilly committed to Bridgewater State Hospital under G. L. c. 123, § 35 on the petition of his wife, who feared he was a danger to himself because of his alcoholism.  He was housed and treated with other civilly committed individuals in the Massachusetts addiction center.  In addition to civilly committed individuals, present at the addiction center were guards and members of the inner perimeter security (IPS) unit.  There were also "trustees," criminal convicts who worked in the civil commitment area various chores.
On November 23, 1995, the plaintiff sought to make a telephone call to his wife. When it was his turn to use the phone, a criminal convict working there told the plaintiff that he would be using the telephone and that the plaintiff could not use it.  The plaintiff then went to a second telephone.  Immediately thereafter and without any warning, the defendant struck the plaintiff in the side of his face. There were many people in the common room that contained the telephones, including a guard's station with two guards in it.  No one in the immediate area responded to the attack.
The plaintiff was eventually taken to the IPS office.  When he told an IPS officer what had happened, the officer told him he was a liar and started putting on tight black leather gloves.  The plaintiff was ordered to strip, with no explanation, and then was told to put his clothes back on.  He ultimately saw a nurse, who concluded that he needed to be seen by a doctor.  Using an expletive, one of the IPS officers said, "Throw him in the cage."  Only after 30 minutes in a holding cell was he transported to Brockton Hospital. The plaintiff lost his eye, because all of the bones on the side of his face were broken and his eye had been punctured. The plaintiff lost sight in his left eye and continued to have pain. 
After trial in the Superior Court, a jury found the Commonwealth liable and returned a verdict in Mr. Devlin's favor in the amount of $450,000.  After a hearing, the trial judge denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, but granted a motion for remittitur and reduced the judgment to $100,000 in accordance with G. L. c. 258, § 2, which provides that public employers shall not be liable for damages in excess of $100,000. The Commonwealth appealed.

SJC Holding:
            The SJC upheld the lower court’s ruling. The court concluded that the Commonwealth lacked discretion to allow the convict into that area in accordance with G. L. c. 123 § 35. Furthermore, the Commonwealth was not entitled to immunity under § 10(j) of the MTCA. The affirmative decision by the Commonwealth to allow convicted criminals to work in the same space where civilly committed individuals were housed was an “original cause” of the plaintiff’s injury. As such the cap on judgments against the Commonwealth did not apply. 

Written 6/28/13