Request By:
Mr. Joseph W. Justice
Pike County Attorney
Courthouse
Pikeville, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
A judgment against the county jailer was awarded in federal court in a civil rights action. The jury found that the jailer or deputies failed to provide reasonable medical care to plaintiff for injuries received while he was in Pike County Jail. The question is whether Pike Fiscal Court can legally pay this judgment. The answer is "no".
The jailer is charged with the duty of treating county prisoners humanely. KRS 71.040. As custodian of prisoners, he must make a judgment in a particular situation as to whether the seeking of reasonable medical care is reasonably necessary. It has been held that "whether a prisoner, during his lawful term, should or should not receive medical treatment in suitable environs must ordinarily be determined by custodial authorities in the proper exercise of a sound discretion." Darey v. Sandritter (U.S.C.A. -9, 1965) 355 F.2d 22, 23. Prisoners are entitled to reasonable medical care. Edwards v. Duncan (U.S.C.A. -4, 1966) 355 F.2d 993, 994. In 60 Am.Jur.2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions, § 52, p.p. 860-861, it is written that "the failure to provide or permit access to medical care may violate the Fourteenth Amendment where the allegations of the petition seeking judicial aid show an acute physical condition, the urgent need for medical care, the failure or refusal to provide it, and tangible residual injury . . ."
A jailer is subject to the general rule that he must exercise reasonable and ordinary care for the life and health of his prisoners; and he is liable for a breach of that duty. 60 Am.Jur.2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions, § 28, p. 834. It is well settled law in Kentucky that the jailer "must exercise ordinary care for the protection of his prisoner if there is reasonable ground to apprehend the danger to the prisoner. " Bartlett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 225 (1967) 228.
So much for the responsibility of the jailer. The jury here found that the jailer breached his duty of care to the prisoner. We assume no appeal is being taken from that judgment. Thus it is res judicata, which simply means that a matter once judicially decided is finally decided. Massie v. Paul, 263 Ky. 183, 92 S.W.2d 11 (1936) 14.
There is authority for the proposition that a county may reimburse a county official for court costs and attorney fees when he is subjected to litigation involving the performance of his public duties. The reimbursement can be made if the official acted in good faith in the proper discharge of his official duties and if the suit concerned a county interest. Roberts v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 242 S.W.2d 293 (1951); and Board of Commissioners v. Casper Nat. Bank, Wyo., 105 P.2d 578 (1940). See also 37 Am.Jur. (1st ed.) Municipal Corporations, § 130.
The judgment of the federal court here is against the jailer on the good faith issue as to reimbursement for court costs, and thus the county cannot bear any such costs [attorney fees etc.] of the jailer. However, as relates to your specific question it is our opinion that the county has no statutory authority to pay this judgment. In any event, the county is clothed with sovereign immunity in connection with tort liability. Cullinan v. Jefferson County, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 407 (1967).