Opinion ID: 2053524
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Building Defect

Text: The determinative question in this case is whether the installation of mesh over the overhead crossbars, in order to help deter suicides, renders the cell a suicide-deterrents cell, specifically assigned to deter hangings from the overhead crossbars. Because I think that these cells, with the installed mesh, were intended to function as suicide-deterrent cells, I would hold that the public building exception applies. The plaintiff has presented evidence sufficient to establish that this suicide-deterrent cell was defective in light of its intended purpose because the mesh designed to prevent access to the overhead bars was torn away. The plaintiff also has presented evidence that the defendants had notice and a reasonable time to repair the defect and did nothing. Consequently, the pleadings and supporting documentary evidence are sufficient to allow the plaintiff's claim to go forward. While the cell involved here is typically used to hold a general population and functions as a general holding cell, once the mesh was installed to deter suicides, it functioned in fact as a suicide-deterrent cell. As we noted in Bush, [i]f a hospital is converted into a prison, the building must be maintained as a safe prison, not as a safe hospital. Id. at 732, 275 N.W.2d 268. Similarly, once this cell was converted to a suicidedeterrent cell, the city was obligated to maintain it as a safe suicide-deterrent cell, in that it had a duty to maintain the specific safety feature designed to accomplish this purpose in good repair. [8] As a suicide-deterrent cell, the analysis this Court applied in Lockaby controls. A defect in a feature designed to protect the inmate or arrestee from his own devices comes within the building exception if the plaintiff can show that the defect was a contributing cause of the injuries. As we noted in de Sanchez, supra, the fact that other causes also might be involved, such as inadequate supervision or the arrestee's own actions toward self-destruction, does not necessarily preclude application of the public building exception. [9]