Opinion ID: 1177005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: order denying motion for summary judgment

Text: Defendant State of Idaho has moved for Summary Judgment, and the Court is of the opinion that said motion must be denied. Plaintiff Deborah Ann Merritt was born August 2, 1967, and the events herein concerned occurred on or about March 28, 1980. At that time, Plaintiff was an inmate of the Bonner County jail. Defendant State of Idaho's liability is set forth in Count Five of the Complaint. Therein, it is alleged that in March of 1980, the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare petitioned the Bonner County court under the Child Protective Act for the legal custody of the Plaintiff, then on March 26, 1980, the magistrate granted custody to the said department and the employees of the department while acting within the course and scope of their employment and, in the performance of their duties, negligently permitted and encouraged the confinement of the Plaintiff in the Bonner County jail, and, as a result, said Plaintiff came in contact through both sight and sound with the Defendant Hendrickson (another inmate) and with the adult prisoners of the Bonner County jail. It is further alleged that Hendrickson offensively and harmfully touched the person of the Plaintiff which was intentional and thereby caused her damage. The State argues that, as a matter of law, it could not be held liable under the Idaho Tort Claims Act on two grounds, both of which involve Idaho Code Section 6-904. A governmental entity and its employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment and without malice or criminal intent shall not be liable for any claim which: 1. Arises out of any act or omission of an employee of the governmental entity exercising ordinary care, in reliance upon or the execution or performance of a statutory or regulatory function, whether or not the statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused.       4. Arises out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abusive process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights. The State's contentions are two-fold. That is, that the claim falls within the discretionary function exemption and arises out of battery.