Opinion ID: 1499122
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deputy Jailer Paul Henderson

Text: As to Henderson, the Court of Appeals found material issues of fact as to whether Henderson failed to properly direct or supervise the work crew by either (1) improperly assigning the tasks of cutting the trees, (2) failing to properly supervise them at all times during their work, (3) failing to show them how to stay out of the way of falling trees, (4) failing to provide them a safe work place, and/or (5) causing them to engage in unduly hazardous work. As answers have already been given regarding training to avoid falling trees and unduly hazardous work, we will not duplicate our previous comments. As to providing a safe work place, there is no evidence that this road, where brush and trees were being cut by state prisoners, was an unsafe workplace. And we are not disposed to hold so. But, the important point is that none of these issues rise to the level of implying bad faith under the circumstances presented. Brush and trees are cut every day by everyday people. The habits and practices on how to do so safely are common knowledge and obvious to adults. It's just plain common sense that no one has ever found a sure way to teach  especially when it comes to adults avoiding falling trees. Now, the assignment and operation of chainsaws  under circumstances which did not exist here  could be a closer question. Yet, the record here discloses two important points. Henderson only gave the chainsaw to those he knew (by previous experience with them) could handle them or to those new members such as Sloas, who, when asked, indicated they knew how to handle them. Moreover, the fact that one tree hit a mailbox and that the saw kicked back on Billy Blackford is not an indication that someone is going to walk into an area where trees are being cut without paying strict attention to what is happening. It is an unforeseen and unfortunate incident  but it is not an indication of an improper assignment or supervision of the work area, such as to indicate some likelihood of the injury, and bad faith on the part of Henderson. If an officer knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took would violate a [clearly established] right of the plaintiff, bad faith may be found to exist. Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 523. Thus, any finding of bad faith on Henderson's part, from the facts in this case, would be improper. As to the allegations of improper supervision, we can find no facts which could support such a finding or belief of bad faith.