## Facts

- Robert G. Blair, a federal prisoner, was housed at the New Castle County Correctional Institution in Delaware under a contract between Delaware’s Department of Correction and the U.S. Department of Justice.
- Delaware law authorized the Department of Correction to contract with federal authorities for payment for the “maintenance and support” of federal offenders committed to Delaware’s custody.
- The written contract described Delaware’s services as the “safekeeping, care and subsistence” of federal prisoners and assigned institutional officials responsibility for prisoners’ safe custody and discipline.
- Blair was attacked by another prisoner and alleged that state officials and the State were responsible for permitting the assault.
- Blair sued on two theories: (1) negligence (tort) and (2) breach of the federal–state contract, claiming he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the safekeeping obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether sovereign immunity barred Blair’s negligence claim against the State arising from an inmate assault.
2. Whether sovereign immunity barred a breach-of-contract claim based on a contract entered pursuant to statutory authorization.
3. Whether Blair had standing to sue as an intended third-party beneficiary of the federal–state prisoner-safekeeping contract.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the tort (negligence) claim on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The court reversed dismissal of the contract claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that legislative authorization for a state agency to enter a contract constitutes consent to suit for breach of that contract.
- The court held Blair could proceed as a third-party beneficiary because the contract’s safekeeping promises were intended to benefit the class of federal prisoners housed under the agreement.

## Legal Principles

- In Delaware, sovereign immunity may be waived only by legislative act.
- Absent a statutory waiver, sovereign immunity bars tort claims against the State.
- When the General Assembly authorizes a state agency to enter into contracts, the State is subject to suit for breach of those authorized contracts.
- A third party may enforce a public contract as an intended beneficiary when the contract’s performance is meant to satisfy a legal obligation the promisee owes to that third party or class, even if the contract does not specify individual enforcement rights.

## Conclusion

The court maintained sovereign immunity for negligence claims absent legislative waiver but recognized an implied waiver for breach of contracts entered under legislative authorization, allowing a federal prisoner to pursue a third-party-beneficiary claim based on contractual promises of safekeeping.


Blair v. Anderson, 325 A.2d 94 (Del. 1974)