By Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer Scott Eller

Last month the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision in a case in which the Court considered an issue of judicial immunity.[1] A sheriff deputy escorted an inmate from a courtroom to the jail on the instructions of the judge.  She did not handcuff the inmate.  The inmate brook away and ran for the entrance.  He lowered his shoulder and charged into a person in the courthouse, injury him.  That person brought suit.

The trial court dismissed the action on summary judgment on a defense of judicial immunity.  The Court of Appeals reversed.  The Washington Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals.

The Court noted that the US Supreme Court has recognized that caution should accompany any application of absolute immunity because absolute immunity prevents recovery even for malicious or corrupt actions.

The United States Supreme Court has wisely recognized that caution should accompany any application of absolute immunity because absolute immunity prevents recovery even for malicious or corrupt actions.  Such immunity is “strong medicine” that should be applied only when necessary to ensure judges and other public officials effectively execute their duties.

Washington courts look to the function being performed instead of the person who performed it. Judicial immunity applies to judges only when they are acting in a judicial capacity and with color of jurisdiction.  Judicial immunity applies to court officers and personnel carrying out judicial functions, but not when carrying out ministerial functions.

The Court ruled that because judges do not normally escort prisoners to jail as part of their official duties and because the judge’s order did not instruct the deputy as to the manner of  transporting the prisoner, such a duty is ministerial, not judicial.  Therefore judicial immunity does not apply.

Comments are closed.