City of Greenville v. Jones
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02640-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-30-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Tort Claims Act - Reckless disregard Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ. and Dickinson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-13-2003 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: Appellant appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment entered for the plaintiffs subsequent to a bench trial. Case Number: C120-0040 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | City of Greenville, Mississippi |
TIMOTHY DALE CRAWLEY,
VATERRIA LASHAUNDA McQUITTER |
||
| Appellee: | John H. Jones and Monica Jones | WILLIE L. BAILEY, WILLIE GRIFFIN |
|
|
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: | Tort Claims Act - Reckless disregard |
| Summary of the Facts: | After being wrongfully arrested and indicted for the felony offenses of falsely reporting that explosives had been placed in two buildings, John Jones and his wife, Monica, commenced civil litigation against Telepak, doing business as Cellular South, as well as Telepak employees who were named as “John Doe” defendants. After receiving a circuit court order directing Telepak to release certain phone records for the relevant dates and times, the Greenville Police Department in due course received a packet from Telepak which purportedly contained the name of the person owning the cellular phone from which the threatening calls had been placed. Five pages of this six-page packet were generated from a search conducted by a Telepak employee. This search revealed that all four of the bomb threat calls had been placed from a cellular phone bearing a particular phone number. Unfortunately, when this same Telepak employee entered the phone number information into the Telepak system in order to determine the name of the owner of the cellular phone bearing this phone number, he transposed two of the numbers and thus inadvertently entered into the system the wrong phone number. When this incorrect information was entered into the system, the resulting data revealed that the cellular phone bearing the transposed phone number belonged to John H. Jones. This suit sought compensatory and punitive damages for Jones and damages for Mrs. Jones on a loss of consortium claim. The complaint was later amended to add the City of Greenville as a defendant, thereby asserting a claim for damages against the City pursuant to the Tort Claims Act. The Joneses eventually settled with Telepak, which was dismissed with prejudice by way of a circuit court order, and a second amended complaint was filed against the City of Greenville. The court entered a final judgment finding that the Greenville Police Department acted in reckless disregard as to John Jones. The final judgment also provided for an award of damages in the amount of $95,000 to John Jones, and $500 to Monica Jones. The City of Greenville appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jones argues that a careful review by the Greenville police officers of the Telepak packet would have revealed that the cell phone number from which the bomb threat calls were made was different from Jones’ cell phone number; Jones and his father-in-law continually protested to the GPD that an innocent man had been arrested for these crimes, and the GPD refused to investigate Jones’ claims of innocence; the inaccurate information in the Telepak packet was the sole basis for Jones’ arrest; and the grossly inadequate GPD investigation resulted in Jones being maliciously prosecuted for felony charges which were later dismissed. This case turns on whether the actions and/or inactions of the Greenville police officers rose beyond the level of mere negligence to that of reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of John Jones so as to remove the City from the statutory exemption from liability which it otherwise enjoys. The trial judge made several references to either an inadequate investigation, or a failure to perform certain acts during the course of the investigation. This is negligence, not reckless disregard. Indeed inadequacy and carelessness was the focus of the plaintiffs’ case. The failure of law enforcement officials to follow-up on Jones’ proclamations of innocence might, arguendo, rise to the level of negligence, but certainly these actions or inactions fall well short of conduct which could be described as reckless disregard. The record shows that the cellular phone records had passed through the hands of at least four Telepak employees, various officers with the GPD, the District Attorney’s office, the grand jury, and two public defenders, before the transposed cell phone numbers were discovered; that the GPD interviewed the 911 dispatchers; that at least one GPD officer listened to the 911 tapes at least twice; and that the GPD appeared before three different judges during the course of the investigation for a subpoena duces tecum to retrieve the cell phone records, an arrest warrant for Jones, and a search warrant for Jones’ home. Despite the existence of these facts, the trial judge determined that the GPD was guilty of reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of Jones by conducting an inadequate and careless investigation. The judge’s finding is not supported by substantial, credible and reasonable evidence, and was thus manifestly wrong. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
