## Facts

- Joseph Fitzgibbons was arrested in Salem on May 19, 1979, for open and gross lewdness and was booked at the police station.
- Police advised him of his rights, allowed two phone calls, and placed him alone in a cell.
- Fitzgibbons’s sister, as administratrix of his estate, later asserted that he had a belt while in custody and that police failed to remove it or take other protective steps.
- During a visit around 4:30 p.m., the administratrix observed Fitzgibbons wearing a belt and left intending to return with bail and food.
- Around 5:30 p.m., an officer found Fitzgibbons hanging in his cell with a belt tied to the cell door bar and looped around his neck; resuscitation efforts failed.
- The administratrix sued the City of Salem under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, alleging police negligence in failing to prevent a custodial suicide.
- The City supported summary judgment with affidavits from officers stating they had no knowledge or reason to suspect Fitzgibbons was suicidal and no awareness he was wearing a belt.
- The plaintiff did not submit opposing affidavits or other competent materials showing officers had notice of suicidal tendencies or contradicting the City’s evidentiary showing.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff produced specific, admissible facts sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact and defeat the City’s properly supported motion for summary judgment.
2. Whether a municipality may be liable for a detainee’s suicide absent evidence that officers knew or had reason to know the detainee posed a risk of self-harm.
3. Whether any dispute about officers’ failure to discover or remove a belt was material to duty and breach without proof of notice of suicidal risk.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed summary judgment for the City of Salem.
- The court held the City’s affidavits established the absence of a triable issue on whether police knew or should have known of a suicide risk.
- The plaintiff could not rely on pleadings or invite contrary inferences from the City’s affidavits without producing specific facts creating a genuine dispute.
- Any factual disagreement about the belt was not material because, on the record presented, it did not establish a duty to prevent suicide in the absence of notice of suicidal tendencies.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, once the moving party supports summary judgment with evidence showing no genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must respond with specific facts (e.g., affidavits or other competent proof) demonstrating a triable issue.
- A custodial authority’s negligence liability for a detainee’s suicide requires evidence making the suicide foreseeable, typically that officials knew or had reason to know of suicidal tendencies or a self-harm risk.
- The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act permits certain negligence suits against public employers but does not itself supply a substantive duty; ordinary negligence elements, including duty grounded in foreseeability, still control.
- A purported factual dispute is “material” only if it could affect the outcome under governing law; facts unrelated to establishing duty or breach do not defeat summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the City because the plaintiff did not produce evidence creating a genuine dispute that police knew or had reason to know Fitzgibbons was suicidal, and without such foreseeability-based notice, the municipality had no negligence duty to prevent the suicide even if questions existed about whether a belt should have been discovered or removed.


Slaven v. City of Salem, 386 Mass. 885, 438 N.E.2d 348 (1982)