## Facts

- Maurice Stockberger worked at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana and was an insulin-dependent diabetic known to have recurring hypoglycemic episodes.
- During episodes, he could become hostile, suspicious, agitated, or unresponsive, and sometimes denied having a medical problem.
- Co-workers had previously responded by urging him to eat or drink Ensure; the prison had sometimes provided transportation for sick employees, including Stockberger, but had no written policy for handling ill employees.
- On the day of his death, a co-worker observed Stockberger experiencing an episode; Stockberger said he felt ill and wanted to go home.
- The co-worker gave him Ensure, which improved his condition, but Stockberger remained adamant about leaving.
- Co-workers wanted him to stay until he recovered, but no one offered to drive him, took his keys, or contacted his supervisor or wife.
- Stockberger drove home erratically, left the roadway, struck signs, and ultimately hit a tree; the truck caught fire and he died.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim that the prison negligently failed to adopt a policy providing transportation to dangerously ill employees is barred by the FTCA discretionary-function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).
2. Whether, under Indiana law, the United States (through prison staff) owed a duty to prevent a competent adult employee from leaving work and driving while impaired by hypoglycemia, based on a special relationship, premises-liability principles, or a voluntary undertaking.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.
- The policy-based negligence claim was barred by the FTCA discretionary-function exception because deciding whether and how to implement an employee-transportation/medical-assistance policy involved protected judgment and policy choice.
- The duty-to-act claim failed because Indiana law imposed no affirmative duty on the prison or co-workers to restrain or otherwise prevent Stockberger from leaving and driving in these circumstances.
- Past instances of providing rides did not create an enforceable duty absent a concrete undertaking creating reliance or increasing risk through negligent performance.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, claims challenging governmental policy choices (including whether to adopt workplace assistance or transportation policies) are barred when the challenged conduct is discretionary within § 2680(a).
- Absent a recognized special relationship, Indiana tort law generally imposes no affirmative duty to rescue, protect, or control a person for that person’s own safety.
- Employer status or landowner-invitee status, without more, does not require restraining a competent adult from leaving premises to avoid self-inflicted harm.
- An informal, inconsistent practice of helping sick employees does not itself establish a voluntary undertaking that creates a duty, absent reliance or an increased risk of harm caused by negligent performance.
- Imposing a duty to prevent an adult from leaving can create conflicting exposure (negligent failure to stop departure versus potential liability for unlawful restraint).

## Conclusion

The court held that the FTCA barred liability for the prison’s failure to adopt a transportation policy for ill employees and that, under Indiana law, prison staff had no actionable duty to prevent a competent adult employee from leaving work and driving despite apparent medical impairment.


Stockberger v. United States, 332 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2003)