N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 162
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-55 (2026)

Injury to prisoner by jailer

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 162 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the keeper of a jail shall do, or cause to be done, any wrong or injury to the prisoners committed to his custody, contrary to law, he shall not only pay treble damages to the person injured, but shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1795, c. 433, s. 6, P.R.; R.C., c. 87, s. 8; Code, s. 3463; Rev., s. 3661; C.S., s. 4407; 1983, c. 631, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 1098; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: State v. Shepherd, 577 S.E.2d 341 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shepherd, 577 S.E.2d 341 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 27× “Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charge of injury to prisoner by jailer because defendant asserts that he was not “the keeper of a jail” within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-55 (2001) since he was a courtroom bailiff.”
Layman v. Alexander, 294 F. Supp. 2d 784 (W.D.N.C. 2003). · cites it 17× “” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 162-55. This statute codifies “longstanding North Carolina precedent that a sheriff and his deputies are liable for their negligence which results in an injury to a prisoner.”
Layman Ex Rel. Layman v. Alexander, 343 F. Supp. 2d 483 (W.D.N.C. 2004). · cites it 21× “§ 1983 , state law negligence, and a claim pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 162-55. On November 21, 2003, the Court dismissed Layman’s § 1983 claims against Alexander and Haynes in their individual capacities, and the negligence and negligent supervision claims against Alexander in…”
Stockton v. Wake Cnty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 292 (E.D.N.C. 2016). · cites it 7× “Count Six (state-law claim of injury to a prisoner, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 162-55) against Harrison, Butler, Brown, McClain, Sabas, and Bayes North Carolina General Statute § 162-55 provides that “[i]f the keeper of a jail shall do, or cause to be done, any wrong or injury to the…”
Ramsey v. Schauble, 141 F. Supp. 2d 584 (W.D.N.C. 2001). · cites it 5× “State Statutory Claim N.C.Gen.Stat. § 162-55 (1994) provides: Injury to prisoner by jailer.”
Baker v. Smith, 737 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Defining assistant jailers as public officials entitled to immunity does not undermine this framework; nor does it lead to unaccountable jailers, given the extensive regulations, the ability of injured parties to sue on the sheriff’s bond, the potential criminal penalties for…”
Letchworth v. Gay, 874 F. Supp. 107 (E.D.N.C. 1995). · cites it 4× “Now the matter is before the court on the plaintiffs Motion to Treble Damages, pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 162-55. The defendants argue that this is an obscure, old statute which has never been used to treble an award to a prisoner and that, in any event, it was intended to…”
Knight v. Vernon, 23 F. Supp. 2d 634 (M.D.N.C. 1998). · cites it 2× “See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 162-55. It is also the jailer’s duty to keep the jail clean and sanitary.”
Thomas v. McFadden (W.D.N.C. 2025). · cites it 36× “of those individual Defendants and Defendant Nunally, Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a claim under Section 1983 or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-55 . But Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim will be permitted to proceed as to a few of the individuals based on Plaintiff’s allegations of…”
Frink v. Batten, 676 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The suit alleged claims for injury to a prisoner under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-55 , negligent failure to obtain medical care, common law negligence, and action against surety, as well as a claim pursuant to 42 U.”
Gunter v. S. Health Partners, Inc. (M.D.N.C. 2021). · cites it 16× “) In one section, Plaintiff argues why he believes his claims under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-55 are “viable.” (Pl.”
Anderson v. S. Health Partners, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2022). · cites it 5× “The court granted SHP’s motion and granted in part the Beaufort Defendants’ motion (DE 33, 37); thus, the claims remaining in this case are: Plaintiffs third cause of action for violation of § 162-55 of the North Carolina General Statutes against Defendants Coleman and Ohio…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.