Marceaux v. Gibbs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Custodians of prisoners have a duty to manage the affairs of the prison so as not to create an unreasonable risk of harm to the public. This duty does not encompass all harm inflicted by escapees. Although prison authorities have a duty to prevent inmates from escaping, that duty is intended to protect persons from being harmed by escaping inmates while they are in the process of escaping. The duty is not intended to protect persons from harm inflicted by inmates who have already escaped and who subsequently commit tortious acts in the furtherance of their own pursuits. The state is not the insurer of the safety of its citizens. To recover against a custodian, a plaintiff must prove that the custodian was negligent in the management of the prison, that this negligence facilitated the escape, that the actions of the escapee caused the harm complained of, and that the risk of harm encountered by the particular plaintiff falls within the scope of the duty owed by the custodian, (citations omitted). In resolving the scope of the duty issue, improper emphasis has occasionally been placed on foreseeability or on the proximity of time and distance between the escape and the escapee’s offense that caused the injury to his victim. The proper question is whether the offense occurred during, or as an integral part of, the process of escaping. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The court of appeal, while acknowledging the proper legal precepts, held, nonetheless, that the trial court ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mesh v. Lundy

2. “In order to recover for injuries caused by an escaped prisoner, an injured plaintiff must prove the following: (1) negligence on the part of the custodian in managing the facility; (2) that this negligence facilitated the escape; (3) that the escapee's actions caused the harm complained of; and, (4) that the risk of harm encountered by the plaintiff falls within the scope of duty owed by the custodian.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Natrona County v. Blake

3. “Likewise, the Town of Iota’s vehicle used by Gibbs in his escape proved to be a necessary component and facilitated his flight from the authorities. Because Keith Marceaux’s damages resulted from Gibbs’ escape, we affirmatively answer the question of whether the risk of plaintiffs injuries was within the scope of duty Gibbs’ custodians owed to the general public.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mesh v. Lundy