Add to Library

Search

Daniels v. Williams

Citation. 474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 1986 U.S.

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 1986 U.S.

474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 1986 U.S.

an> Daniels (Petitioner) seeks damages for injuries he sustained while he was an inmate at the jail.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Negligent government action is not a deprivation of individual interest, and is not a violation of Due Process.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The type of Fourteenth Amendment interest that is implicated has important effects on the nature of the constitutional claim and the availability of § 1983 relief.

View Full Point of Law

point of law

Facts. Petitioner was an inmate at the local jail. One day, he slipped on a pillow left in the stairwell by Williams (Respondent), a correctional deputy. Petitioner claims that Respondent’s negligence led to the deprivation of his “liberty” interest in freedom from bodily injury.

Issue. Does negligence by a government actor equate to deprivation under the Due Process Clause?

Held. No. Mere negligence does not require compensation according to the United States Constitution.

Discussion. The purpose of Due Process is to protect the individual from action by the government. This refers to arbitrary actions by the government that infringes upon an individual’s rights. This does not include failure to exercise due care in the maintenance of a building.

Create New Group