Opinion ID: 148261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Negligence Claims Against the Defendants

Text: Aside from his section 1983 and constitutional claims, Davis asserts a number of negligence claims against the defendants. First, he alleges negligence against the County because of the condition of the jail. Under Missouri law, public entities such as Oregon County are afforded sovereign immunity from tort actions. Mo.Rev. Stat. § 537.600.1. However, Davis contends Oregon County waived its immunity due to the dangerous condition of the jail, which is excepted from immunity. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 537.600.1(2). The district court concluded the County had not waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to state law because the dangerous condition of property waiver does not apply when prisoners commit intentional acts the plaintiff claims the prison should have protected against. The Missouri Supreme Court has made clear a plaintiff must allege more than that a public entity's property in some remote way presaged the commission of a tort by another party. Kanagawa v. State By and Through Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Mo. banc 1985). In Kanagawa, the Missouri Supreme Court held the plaintiff's allegations were deficient to show a defect, either through construction or maintenance, in the condition of a prison. Id. Kanagawa was later reversed in part in Alexander v. State, 756 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Mo. banc 1988), which concerned a ladder placed by an agent of the state that resulted in injury to the plaintiff. Alexander slightly broadened the scope of the dangerous condition exception by concluding an object placed by an agent of the state may qualify as a dangerous condition even though it was not part of the physical construction or maintenance of the property itself. 756 S.W.2d at 542. However, the remand in Alexander did not appear to completely foreclose the dangerous condition requirement because the court noted the condition here was dangerous because its existence, without intervention by third parties, posed a physical threat to plaintiff. Id. In other words, in situations involving intervening acts by third parties not connected to the state, the exception to immunity still would not apply. Cain v. Mo. Highways & Transp. Com'n, 239 S.W.3d 590, 596 (Mo. banc 2007). In order to state a claim under the dangerous condition exception, Davis must show 1) a dangerous condition of public property, 2) that the injury directly resulted from the dangerous condition, 3) that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of harm incurred, and 4) that a public employee negligently created the condition, or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition. State ex rel. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. Dierker, 961 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Mo.1998). Although Davis does not believe the cause of the fire is established, it is doubtful whether he has met his burden on summary judgment, as discussed above. Even if the cause of the fire is unknown, Davis fails to establish a dangerous condition of the jail caused the fire or that any such condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the harm incurred. Davis's argument suggests we view the lack of an operable sprinkler system and oxygen equipment in isolation in order to satisfy the dangerous condition exception. However, as we discussed above, the condition of the property, as a whole, did not pose a threat to Davis in light of the multiple fire extinguishers and smoke detectors present at the jail, which were sufficient to meet the inmates' safety needs in this case. Accordingly, the dangerous condition exception does not apply to bar the County's immunity. Davis also alleges negligence per se against all defendants because he claims the jail did not comply with local, state, and/or federal building codes. However, he fails to set forth any violations of any building codes. He has also failed to present any evidence showing an issue of material fact because he does not meet his burden on summary judgment by disputing the affidavits set forth by the defendants showing there were no applicable building codes in existence for the jail to violate. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Finally, Davis alleges negligence against Sheriff Ward and Oregon County for creating a dangerous condition by allowing the inmates to be housed in an unsafe jail and maintaining insufficient safety procedures. The County is immune pursuant to Missouri law, as discussed above. Public officials are also afforded immunity for tasks undertaken in relation to the officials' performance of discretionary duties. Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603, 610 (Mo. banc 2008). Whether an act is discretionary or ministerial is a case-by-case determination based on: (1) the nature of the public employee's duties; (2) the extent to which the act involves policymaking or exercise of professional judgment; and (3) the consequences of not applying official immunity. Id. Here, the district court correctly granted immunity to Sheriff Ward. The safety measures suggested by Davis were not required under the law, as discussed above, and thus they were not ministerial functions. Boever v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis County, 296 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (A ministerial function is one of a clerical nature which a public officer is required to perform upon a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning the propriety of the act to be performed.) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Rather, determinations such as whether to conduct fire drills, etc., are more discretionary in nature because they require[] the exercise of reason in the adaptation of means to an end and discretion in determining how or whether an act should be done or course pursued. Id. Under these circumstances, Sheriff Ward's determinations were discretionary in nature and he is entitled to official immunity on Davis's negligence claims. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.