This Court ruled that no special relationship existed because the defendant guards owed a duty to the general prison population, and no particular special relationship was alleged between the defendant guards and the escaped inmates that was different from the relationship between the guards and the inmate population. In Harrison , supra , a convict who was paroled five or six years early murdered two boys and attempted to murder a third. The plaintiff brought suit against various state agencies, officials from the Department of Corrections and members of the parole board. This Court again held that no special relationship existed between the defendants and the parolee because no special relationship was alleged between the defendants and the parolee that was different from the relationship between the warden of a prison and members of a parole board and the general population of parolees. Following the rationale of Chivas, supra and Harrison, supra, we conclude that no special relationship existed between defendants and plaintiff.
Defendants are prison guards or prison officials.
Defendants were responsible for the prison population generally, and no particular special relationship was demonstrated between defendants and plaintiff that was different from the relationship between defendants and the general inmate population. Thus, we decline to find that a special relationship existed between defendants and plaintiff. The trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition. Even if we found a special relationship, we still would rule against plaintiff because gross negligence did not exist. Again, we disagree.