State to pay prison officer $50,000 for slap from colleague

A prison officer who was punched in the face by a colleague in 2017 will receive $50,000 in compensation from the State for assault and battery.

The officer, Clinton Gonzales, a motorman with the prison, was punched in the face by another officer on April 28, 2017, as he was about to board the vessel that takes inmates and officers to and from the Carrera Island prison.

Justice Karen Reid ruled in his favour on August 7. Although she awarded him general damages for the assault, Reid declined to award exemplary damages since it was not a case where “conduct was so outrageous to warrant an additional award to punish the State and to show such conduct will not be tolerated.”

Gonzales is expected to appeal the judge’s order on damages, both on quantum and exemplary damages.

His attacker, PO Garcia, was charged with assault arising out of the incident. A day before the trial before Reid, Garcia was found guilty of assault by beating and fined $400.

In his lawsuit, Gonzales said when he reported for duty at Hart’s Cut, Chaguaramas, he noticed the hatch to the boat’s engine room open and saw the other officer in the room.

When he approached, the other officer shouted and cursed at him while accusing him of not being able to do his job properly and then punched him on the right side of the face, making him fall.

Gonzales went to the Carenage Police Station, where he reported the incident, then to the Carenage Health Centre and the Port of Spain General Hospital. He also reported the matter to the police and submitted a report to his prison supervisor when he returned to work after ten days of sick leave.

The lawsuit says the prison authorities had taken no disciplinary action against the other officer.

His lawsuit contended that the State, in particular the Commissioner of Prison, is vicariously liable for the actions of his employees while they are on duty.

His attorneys, Darryl Heeralal and Nerisa Bala argued the actions of Gonzales’ colleague were premeditated and done out of spite. He also contends the incident has injured his feelings and dignity since the other officer made humiliating remarks to him, and he was beaten in full view of other officers.

They also contended that the attack was offensive, hurtful, humiliating, occurred in an undignified manner and was not provoked by anything he did.

The version of events advanced by the State, represented by Coreen Findley, Chelvi Ramkissoon and Kristlyn Lewis, was “diametrically opposed” to Gonzales’ who was made out to be the aggressor and intoxicated before both men exchanged obscenities. The State denied there was a physical altercation between the two but there was an internal inquiry. No evidence on the outcome of this was included in its pleadings, the judge noted in her ruling.

She said Garcia’s credibility was damaged in the court’s eyes by his evidence punctuated by various excuses.

“...It revealed to the court that PO Garcia had no difficulty with, at the very least, withholding information or making partial or erroneous disclosures in order to create a more favourable impression of his actions.

“What further damaged PO Garcia’s credibility was the site visit the court conducted on November 15, 2023, to view the vessel upon which the incident took place…”

Reid said the physical layout of the vessel made Garcia’s version of events “practically impossible.”

“It is implausible that any person, let alone an adult of the size and weight of the claimant, could simply have collapsed on a ledge as narrow as the one overlooking the wide open engine room without falling into it.

“That simply did not happen. PO Garcia’s evidence in that regard is simply untrue. Therefore, something else must have caused the claimant’s injuries.”

On the State’s liability, Reid said she was unable to accept its arguments. She said Gonzales pleaded vicarious liability as Garcia was on duty and not “acting on a frolic of his own,” which is a specific defence to such a claim.

“Pleadings are required to set out the parameters of the case being advanced by each party. If the defendant intended to deny the claimant’s claim on the basis that at the time of PO Garcia’s alleged acts, he was not acting during the course of his employment and was engaging in a frolic of his own, the defendant was required to plead it."

She said even if she had been minded to permit the State to raise the issue in its closing submissions, the evidence did not support it.

“Both the claimant and PO Garcia were admittedly on duty when the incident occurred. Moreover, at the material time, PO Garcia had been actively engaged in performing his duties, which included effecting repairs to the vessel.”

She said part of Garcia’s duties was to train Gonzales to perform maintenance works on the vessel. “Finally, the dispute between them concerned the claimant’s purportedly defective performance of those very duties.

“In the circumstances, I find that the incident and the sequence of events were so intimately connected with PO Garcia’s performance of his duties that it justifies the imposition of vicarious liability upon the employer.

“At no time could PO Garcia be said to have been acting upon his own business and it would be artificial and absurd to find otherwise in the circumstances of the present case.”

However, she did find that Gonzales was not “entirely forthright” in his account and had downplayed his conduct before he was slapped. This was reflected in her award of general damages.