Washington State Supreme Court Ruling Supports Broad Immunity in Overdose Cases
by Michael Dean Thompson
Derek Batton, 34, died from an overdose of heroin he ingested in 2018. He was in the custody of the Grant County Jail at the time for DUI and traffic warrants. Batton, who had struggled with addiction, acquired the drugs from Jordan Tebow. Tebow had a known history of bringing drugs into the jail but was not subjected to a more rigorous search. Since then, Tebow pled guilty to homicide by delivery of a controlled substance and is expected to be released later this year.
Batton’s family filed a lawsuit against Grant County, alleging that by failing to stop the drugs from entering the jail, the jailers were negligent in their common law duty to protect those in their care.
The Washington State Supreme Court, however, found in a 6-3 decision that the state legislature had enacted two defenses, the felony defense and intoxication defense, that offer broad immunity to the jail, even as they recognized that jailers “owe a special common law duty of care to those they guard.” That common law duty, they admit, would still exist if Tebow had managed to smuggle in a gun that he then used to shoot Batton, and “neither of those defenses would have been relevant.” But this case differs. The more applicable analogy for the majority was jailer responsibility when a detainee commits suicide.
The felony defense can be used if a person dies while in the commission of a felony and the commission of the felony was the proximate cause of the death. In Washington, the possession of a controlled substance is a felony, so by acquiring the drug from Tebow, Batton committed a felony. Batton’s family argued in its filing that, “If the felony defense is allowed, a jail will never be liable for a drug overdose, no matter how egregious the jail’s conduct.”
The intoxication defense holds when the deceased is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the intoxication is the proximate cause of death. Given that Batton’s death was the result of an overdose, the trier of fact would then be required to determine if the person was more than 50% at fault.
With regard to the policy implications raised by Batton’s family about the jail’s responsibilities regarding drugs, the majority left that to the legislature to address, if they should choose to do so. As a result, the case is going back to the Grant County Superior Court, which will now reconsider the motion for dismissal in light of the two defenses.
The three dissenting judges worried that the court’s acceptance of those defenses eliminates the jail’s responsibility for inmate well-being. They particularly focused on people like Batton who suffer from addiction. The jail has a particular duty to take reasonable steps to prevent drugs from coming in.
In addition, it is not clear Batton intended to harm himself, as in the suicide analogy. “Those who are incarcerated in jails are particularly vulnerable, and susceptible, to accepting drugs if those drugs are offered to them,” wrote Justice Salvador Mungia. “That is the very basis for the heightened duty the jailer owes to those who are incarcerated.” See: Anderson v. Grant County, 6 Wn.3d 69 (Wash. March 5, 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login