CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’

COVID-19 in Jails: A Case Study

Posted on: May 22nd, 2020

By: Wes Jackson

By now we are all familiar with the CDC’s recommendations for limiting the spread of COVID-19: “social distancing,” maintaining a distance of six feet from others as much as possible, avoiding large gatherings, and self-isolation if you exhibit symptoms of the disease or test positive, among others. As challenging as these practices can be for the general public, they pose a unique challenge to jail administrators who are now tasked with limiting the spread of COVID-19 amongst inmates tightly packed into closed places. All the while, jail officials must also maintain order and security in the jail while respecting the constitutional rights of inmates.

How should jails balance these competing interests and, perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide? There are no clear answers to those questions. Interestingly, though, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Swain v. Junior that provides a helpful analysis.

In Swain, inmates at Miami’s Metro West Detention Center filed for a preliminary injunction and habeas relief against the jail administrator, arguing that the jail was not doing enough to stop the spread of COVID-19 between inmates. While it was uncontested that the jail had already undertaken many measures recommended by the CDC  to address COVID-19 in jail settings (you can read that guidance here), the inmates nevertheless asked the federal district court to issue an injunction requiring the jail to take various precautions. The district court agreed and ordered the jail to implement several specific practices to stop the spread of COVID-19 in the jail, including maintenance of six feet social distancing “to the maximum extent possible;” strict testing and PPE requirements, and new procedures for the provision of medical care, among others.

The jail then went to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to ask for a stay of the injunction. The Eleventh Circuit, applying the “deliberate indifference to a risk of serious harm” standard, found that the measures the jail had taken were constitutionally adequate and did not require an immediate injunction. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that “the evidence supports that the defendants are taking the risk of COVID-19 seriously.” The Court also noted that local governments are in the best position to allocate resources in high-demand needed to prevent, test for, and treat COVID-19 amongst various local facilities, and the district court could not assume the role of “super warden” in ordering a particular allocation of those limited resources.

In short, the COVID-19 pandemic poses a novel challenge to jail administrators. At least for now, the Eleventh Circuit has granted one jail some latitude in how it addresses that challenge. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is consistent with federal courts’ reluctance to micromanage correctional facilities in the absence of widespread constitutional violations.   

If you have any questions about local governments’ response to COVID-19, please contact Wes Jackson at [email protected].

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis.  Click here to view upcoming webinars.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

Georgia Federal Judge Enforces Contractual Liability Limitation, Cuts Jury Verdict in Half

Posted on: September 19th, 2019

By: Jake Carroll

A federal judge in Georgia enforced a limitation of liability clause in a construction contract for engineering services—reducing the jury’s award from $5.7 million to just over $2 million. See U.S. Nitrogen LLC v. Weatherly, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-462-MLB, (N.D.Ga. Sept. 16, 2019).

The case arose from the design and construction of an ammonium nitrate solution plant in Midway, Tennessee. The project owner, US Nitrogen (“USN”), hired Weatherly to provide engineering services related to the construction, and entered into a written contract.

Constructing the plant cost more money and took longer than the parties initially anticipated—to the tune of $200 Million. USN attributed more than $30 million of cost overruns and delays to Weatherly’s design, and brought suit against Weatherly for breach of contract, breach of warranty, professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and bad faith.

Following discovery, Weatherly moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the contract contained an enforceable limitation of liability provision which capped the damages USN could seek to fifteen percent (15%) of Weatherly’s contract price. Weatherly also argued that the terms of the contract prevented USN from recovering consequential damages.

The court agreed with Weatherly—finding that USN could only recover up to $2,203,800 of the more than $30 million it was seeking—and the case proceeded to trial for the jury to determine the amount of damages incurred by USN as a result of Weatherly’s breach. Although the jury ultimately awarded $5,755,000 in damages, the court reduced the award to $2,203,800, pursuant to its earlier findings, and consistent with the terms of the contract. However, the judgment is not final: either party may still appeal the decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

While Georgia courts have long recognized limitation of liability clauses as valid and enforceable, this case is another example of how carefully drafted contract language can mitigate future risk. Typically, a party’s exposure can be limited to the amount of compensation under the contract, or even less in Weatherly’s case. Such clauses are most frequently seen in contracts for services such as agreements with design professionals and testing laboratories. Nonetheless, there is no reason that they could not be included in general contracts and subcontracts.

If you have questions regarding this decision, or any other contract drafting questions, Jake Carroll practices construction and commercial law as a member of Freeman Mathis & Gary’s Construction Law, Commercial Litigation, and Tort and Catastrophic Loss practice groups. Mr. Carroll represents business and commercial entities in a wide range of disputes and corporate matters involving breach of contract and warranty, business torts, and products liability claims.