Opinion ID: 392171
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Classification of Pugh

Text: 37 The third and final allegation of negligence resulted from the Center's decision to release one of Murphy's attackers, Vaughn Pugh, from the Center's Adjustment Unit. 63 Appellant argued that Pugh's release subjected him to an unreasonable risk of attack. However, we agree with the trial judge's conclusion that this theory of negligence was not supported by the evidence and thus also cannot sustain the jury's verdict. Murphy v. United States, Civ. No. 78-251 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 1980) (order granting judgment n. o. v.); R. 92 at 2. 38 In contrast to his testimony regarding appellant's other allegations of negligence, appellant's expert did not state that anything about the decision to mainstream Pugh violated a penological concept. 64 The process by which the decision was made was admittedly adequate; 65 the decision itself was not off the wall. 66 The strongest term of criticism Mr. Miller was willing to utter against the decision was inappropriate. 67 As the District's counsel made clear on cross-examination, the disagreement between Mr. Miller and the officer who had made the decision was one of professional judgment. 68 39 We are unwilling to hold under the circumstances here that evidence of a difference in judgment between experts as to the assaultive possibilities of an inmate constitutes evidence of negligence. When a decision requiring a difficult prediction of future behavior is shown to have been made in accordance with proper procedural safeguards and is substantively within a range of reasonableness, the burden of proving negligence cannot be said to have been met. 69 Appellant presented no evidence to support his claim that the officials negligently classified Pugh aside from the testimony of Mr. Miller. Pugh's disciplinary reports showed a pattern of verbal, not physical abuse; there was no evidence that he had assaulted an inmate prior to the attack on Murphy. Pugh's release from the Adjustment Unit followed 90 days of, and behavioral improvement during, treatment; release was conditioned on his participation in a special counseling program. 70 In short, appellant presented no evidence that Lorton Youth Center's handling of Pugh was unreasonable, and the trial court could properly direct a verdict against Murphy on that theory of liability.