J.R. v. Malley
| Docket Number: | 2010-IA-00382-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-IA-00382-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-31-2011 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Battery - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Conviction in prior criminal case - Criminal intent - Res judicata - Section 97-5-23 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment; Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2010 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: Following hearings, the circuit court entered an Order denying J.R.'s motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted J.R.'s Petition for Permission for Interlocutory Appeal. Case Number: 2008-84 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | J. R., a Minor, By and Through Next Friend and Father, R.R. |
DAVID RANDALL WADE, ROBERT LOFTON GRAY, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Bobby Malley and Janet Malley | CHRISTOPHER A. TABB |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Battery - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Conviction in prior criminal case - Criminal intent - Res judicata - Section 97-5-23 |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2004, Bobby Malley pled guilty to two criminal charges of fondling twelve-year-old J.R. on separate occasions. In 2008, J.R. filed a civil suit against Malley and his wife, Janet Malley, which included a claim against Malley for battery, and other claims. Subsequently, J.R. filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Liability Against Defendant, Bobby Malley. The circuit court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | A conviction in a prior criminal case is conclusive, in a subsequent civil action, of the facts upon which the conviction was based. As J.R. maintains, by virtue of Malley’s guilty plea, the underlying facts of those two fondling incidents, including Malley’s intent therein, are now established facts. Malley’s guilty plea renders conclusive the facts upon which the conviction was based, and the doctrine of res judicata applies to the civil proceeding. Without question, intent is generally a question of fact for the jury. But here, Malley’s criminal intent to touch J.R. for the purpose of gratifying lust was admitted in his guilty plea and thus satisfies the intent element for the intentional tort of battery. Section 97-5-23 imposed a duty well within the contours of the common law tort of battery, such that Malley’s fondling conviction established his fault in tort as to the two incidents which were the subject of his guilty plea. As to his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the elements that Malley acted willfully or wantonly towards J.R. by [description of defendant’s actions and that the defendant’s acts are ones which evoke outrage or revulsion in civilized society are satisfied by the conclusive facts upon which Malley’s conviction was based. Thus, there is no error in the circuit court’s refusal to grant a partial summary judgment of liability regarding that claim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
