Terrence Prude alleged that staff of the Milwaukee County Jail
had subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment because they fed
him nothing but nutriloaf, which Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit
described as 'a bad-tasting food given to prisoners as a form
of punishment', for periods of seven to ten days at a time.
Prude alleged that this steady diet caused vomiting, stomach pains,
constipation, 'alarming' weight loss and possibly an anal
fissure ('which is no fun at all', in the words of the
learned judge).
Summary judgment was initially granted in favour of the
defendants, but Judge Posner thought this was wrong: their response
to the suit was 'contumacious' in that they ignored the
self-represented Prude's discovery demands and the court's
order to comply with them. The defendants' evidence on summary
judgment was a 'preposterous' hearsay assertion that
nutriloaf 'has been determined to be a nutritious substance for
regular meals'. The fact that Prude had sued prison staff who
had not actually been indifferent to his health was not fatal to
his appeal; at least some of them were aware of the dire effects of
nutriloaf and did nothing to help. The court below was correct,
however, to strike Prude's claim that it was cruel to offer him
a sandwich ('and not of nutriloaf, either') as a bribe to
spy on other prisoners; Prude had rejected the offer, but not
getting the sandwich made him no worse off than he would have been
otherwise. The defendants were ordered to show cause why they
should not be sanctioned for their flouting of the lower
court's orders; if they ignored this order, 'they will find
themselves in deep trouble'.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
In Bondy v. London (City), the Court considered whether the City of London and/or a homeowner were liable for a slip and fall accident that occurred on the paved portion of a municipal boulevard that formed part of a residential driveway running from the municipal sidewalk to the roadway.
Amato v. Welsh, 2013 ONCA 258 marks an interesting development in the law – it suggests the previously inviolable doctrine of absolute privilege which protects lawyers from suit may admit an exception.
As the current trend to self-representation increases, regardless the reason, one must ask if the tradition of lawyers appearing before Courts, above the Ontario Court of Justice, ought to continue the traditional legal wearing of robes.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
