Opinion ID: 2226673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Trial Court Finding of Negligence.

Text: A jailer is bound to exercise, in the control and management of the jail, the degree of care required to provide reasonably adequate protection for his inmates. Daniels v. Andersen, 195 Neb. 95, 237 N.W.2d 397 (1975); O'Dell v. Goodsell, 149 Neb. 261, 30 N.W.2d 906 (1948). The trial court found the DCS breached this duty in five respects. First, the trial court found that the kite dated October 19, 1989, was or should have been received and read by Britten on Friday, October 20, and that failure to act on the threat contained in the kite constituted negligence. The State argues that there was no evidence presented which would allow the court to conclude that any member of the penitentiary staff actually saw Palmer's kite prior to the incident and that Palmer's testimony concerning when he wrote and mailed the kite is at best equivocal. The findings of the trial court with respect to this issue are not clearly incorrect. A letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed raises a presumption that the letter reached the addressee in the usual course of the mails. Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14, 480 N.W.2d 192 (1992). This presumption may be rebutted with any relevant evidence; however, positive testimony by the addressee that a letter was not received simply raises a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. Waite Lumber Co., Inc. v. Carpenter, 205 Neb. 860, 290 N.W.2d 655 (1980). Britten testified that an interview request deposited in the prison mail before 9 p.m. on Thursday would be sorted and distributed to the appropriate department for consideration on Friday. Clarke testified that a kite placed in the mail on Thursday would be distributed for consideration by Friday morning. Clarke conceded that had Britten read Palmer's kite, he would have been in violation of prison rules and procedures for not taking action on the threat. Furthermore, Britten testified that his normal routine is to read all kites distributed to him in a given day and that on October 20, 1989, he did not recall reading Palmer's kite. Although in his deposition Britten stated he could have been busy on that particular occasion and not read his distributions, he qualified this statement at trial, claiming to have reviewed his records and discovered he was not too busy to read his mail on October 20 and that on that date, he does not recall receiving Palmer's kite. Palmer's testimony as to when he placed his kite in the prison mail system is equivocal. Palmer admitted that he dated his kite October 19, 1989, but beyond this Palmer claimed to remember little else. Palmer testified that he was not very good with dates and that he could have written and mailed the kite on either October 18 or October 20. Sherrod's counsel confronted Palmer with a statement that he purportedly made in which Palmer claimed he had mailed the kite on Thursday because he wanted the kite to be acted upon before the weekend. Palmer denied having specifically said he mailed the kite on Thursday, but testified that when he mailed the kite, he hoped it would be acted upon before the weekend. We are mindful that in reviewing a judgment awarded in a bench trial, the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence, but considers the judgment in a light most favorable to the successful party and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party, who is entitled to every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence. Cotton v. Ostroski, 250 Neb. 911, 554 N.W.2d 130 (1996). Although Palmer did not mail his kite through the U.S. mail, Sherrod produced sufficient evidence in this case with respect to the reliability of the prison mail system to show that it should be accorded the same presumption given a letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed through the U.S. mail. Britten's bare denial of receipt is insufficient to rebut this presumption as a matter of law. In addition, notwithstanding Palmer's equivocations, there was sufficient evidence to allow the trial court to conclude that Palmer had properly mailed his kite on October 19, 1989. Moreover, the trial court addressed how it viewed Palmer's equivocations when in its order the court wrote, Palmer's `uncertainty' as to dates is unconvincing, and Although the `kite' is dated October 19, 1989, Palmer testified that he was `not sure' whether the date was accurate (apparently having second thoughts with respect to his recollection related to counsel several days previous to the trial) but he did place it in the mail immediately. The State asserts that even if Britten received Palmer's kite on Friday, he had no duty to read the kite that day and that without Britten's reading the kite, Palmer's attack on Sherrod is not reasonably foreseeable. However, Britten initially testified that he, in fact, read all of his distributions on October 20, 1989, but did not recall whether Palmer's kite was one of those distributions. In a bench trial of a law action, the court, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. In re Estate of Disney, 250 Neb. 703, 550 N.W.2d 919 (1996). Since the trial court resolved the issue of whether Britten received Palmer's kite on Friday against the State, in light of Britten's admission, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Britten read Palmer's kite on Friday, but failed to act. Accordingly, the trial court was not clearly incorrect in finding that the State either knew or should have known of Palmer's threat to Sherrod. The State admits that had it known of Palmer's threat to Sherrod, it would have been negligent to not immediately separate the cellmates and begin an investigation. Thus, the finding of negligence on the part of the State in this regard is supported by sufficient competent evidence. The remaining four findings of negligence by the trial court center on the State's duty of reasonable care with respect to security within the penitentiary. Specifically, the trial court found the State was negligent in (1) failing to adequately monitor the weight pile, (2) failing to adequately monitor Palmer's movements within the yard, (3) allowing Palmer to return to his housing unit outside the doors period, and (4) failing to recognize that a 20-inch-long, 1-inch-diameter solid steel bar not permanently affixed to a weight machine would be used as a weapon by an inmate. Having determined that the district court was not clearly incorrect in finding negligence with respect to the State's failure to act when it knew or should have known of Palmer's threat concerning Sherrod, we conclude that it is unnecessary to determine whether the district court was clearly incorrect with respect to any of its other findings of negligence.