Case Name: BAYER v. MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-12-10
Citations: 29 Mich. App. 171
Docket Number: Docket No. 7941
Parties: BAYER v. MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF
Judges: Before: Danhof, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and J. J. Kelley, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 29
Pages: 171–180

Head Matter:
BAYER v. MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF
Opinion of the Court
1. Sheriffs and Constables — Deputy’s Misconduct — Sheriff’s Liability — Statutes.
A sheriff’s hiring of a vicious deputy is not actionable in itself.
2. Sheriffs and Constables — Deputy’s Misconduct — Sheriff’s Liability — Assault and Battery.
Alleged assault and battery committed by a deputy sheriff upon the plaintiff while he was a county jail inmate was the action of the deputy; the sheriff was, by statute, not liable for the wrong (MOLA § 51.70).
3. Sheriffs and Constables — Deputy’s Misconduct — Sheriff’s Liability — Respondeat Superior.
A sheriff is not responsible under the doetrine of respondeat superior for his deputy’s acts, defaults, or miseonduet committed in the course of the deputy’s duties (MCLA § 51.70).
4. Sheriffs and Constables — Counties.
A sheriff’s department is an agency of a county (Const 1963, art 7, § 6).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-3, 9,10] 41 Am Jur, Prisons and Prisoners §§ 12, 13. Civil liability of sheriff or other officer charged with keeping jail or prison for death or injury of prisoner. 14 ALR2d 353.
[4] 38 Am Jur, Municipal Corporations § 620 et seq.
[5,7, 8] 47 Am Jur, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables § 158 et seq.
[6] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 853.
5. Sheriffs and Constables — Sheriff’s Department — Liability— Deputies’ Misconduct.
A sheriff’s department, being an agency of the county, is relieved from liability for an alleged assault and battery committed by a deputy sheriff against a jail inmate (MCLA § 51.70; Const 1963, art 7, § 6).
Dissent by V. J. Brennan, J.
6. Judgment — Summary Judgment — Appeal and Error — Standard of Review — Allegations.
Every well-pleaded allegation of a complaint will be assumed to be true by the appellate court when determining the propriety of the grafting of a motion for summary judgment (GCE, 117.8 [1]).
7. Sheriffs and Constables — Deputy’s Misconduct — Sheriff’s Liability — Source—Construction.
A sheriff’s liability for the acts of his deputies which are within the scope of their authority existed at common law; any statutory change in liability, being in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed (MCLA § 51.70).
8. Sheriffs and Constables — Deputy’s Misconduct — Sheriff’s Liability — Personal Liability — Respondeat Superior — Statutes.
Statutory provision relieving a sheriff from liability for the acts of his deputies does not relieve a sheriff from personal liability but only liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior (MCLA §51.70).
9. Sheriffs and Constables — Deputy’s Misconduct — Assault on Prisoner — Sheriff’s Liability.
A sheriff or other official in charge of a jail or a prison who hnows of the vicious assaultive propensities of a deputy is liable when an inmate is injured by the deputy; the liability attaches, not because of respondeat superior, but because of the sheriff’s or official’s own misconduct m allowing the deputy to remain employed (MCLA §51.70).
10. Negligence — Incompetent Instrumentality.
Use of an instrumentality, whether a human being or a thing, which the user hnows or should Tcnow to. be so incompetent, inappropriate, or defective that its use carries an unreasonable rish of harm to others is negligence.
Appeal from Macomb, Edward J. Gallagher, J.
Submitted Division 1 June 9, 1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 7941.)
Decided December 10, 1970.
Complaint by Ralph Bayer against Lester Almstadt, Macomb County Sheriff, and John Smoot, Deputy Sheriff, for damages for injuries sustained in an assault and battery by the deputy. Summary judgment for defendant sheriff and his department. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Nelson, Gracey S Turner, for plaintiff.
Nunneley, Nunneley, Hirt & Rinehart, for defendant.
Before: Danhof, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and J. J. Kelley, Jr., JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Kelley, J.
Plaintiff seeks to recover civil damages from the sheriff and his department and a deputy sheriff for the alleged misconduct of the deputy sheriff. He alleges in his complaint that while he was under arrest at the county jail the defendant deputy sheriff struck him, inflicting serious injury. He does not allege that the sheriff aided or counselled in the assault. He appeals a summary judgment of dismissal as to defendants sheriff and sheriff's department.
The single issue to be determined on appeal is whether the sheriff and the sheriff's department can be held liable for the alleged assault and battery of a prisoner by a deputy sheriff.
Originally CL 1948, § 51.70 and 51.75 read as follows (emphasis supplied):
"Sec. 70. Each sheriff may appoint 1 or more deputies, for whose official acts he shall be in all respects responsible, and may revoke such appointments at his pleasure; and persons may also he deputed by any sheriff, by an instrument in writing, to do particular acts.
"Sec. 75. The sheriff shall have the charge and custody of the jails of his county, and of the prisoners in the same; and shall keep them himself, or by his deputy or jailer, for whose acts he shall be responsible."
PA 1952, No 110 deleted from these sections, respectively, the phrases for whose official acts he shall be in all respects responsible and for whose acts he shall be responsible, and inserted in § 51.70 the following unequivocal language (emphasis supplied) :
"Sec. 70. No sheriff shall be responsible for the acts, defaults and misconduct in office of any deputy sheriff."
By thus changing these statutes the legislature clearly expressed its intent that under no circumstances should a sheriff be responsible for the actions of any deputy. A sheriff's mere hiring of a vicious deputy is not actionable in and of itself. If such a deputy unjustifiably beats a prisoner, such action is that of the deputy, for which the sheriff is by statute not responsible. The question as to whether he should be responsible is for the legislature to decide.
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to a sheriff for his deputies' acts, defaults or misconduct in the course of their duties. Bridgman v. Bunker (1968), 12 Mich App 44, 47. In Fernelius v. Pierce (1943), 22 Cal 2d 226 (138 P2d 12), no charter or statute, as in the present case, relieved the chief of police from liability for the acts of his subordinates.
The sheriff's department, also named as a defendant, is an agency of the county. Const 1963, art 7, § 6 relieves a county from responsibility under the circumstances here alleged.
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.
Danhof, P. J., concurred.