City of Jackson v. Gray, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01610-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01610-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-11-2011 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-46-9(1)(c) - Reckless disregard Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pierce, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: Found that City of Jackson police officers had acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and apportioned twenty percent of the damages to the City of Jackson. Case Number: 251-07-755 CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | City of Jackson, Mississippi |
KIMBERLY CELESTE BANKS PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mary Gray, Chris Clausell, et al. | JOE N. TATUM EDWARD D. MARKLE | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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: | Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-46-9(1)(c) - Reckless disregard |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Gray, Peggy Pettaway, Kimberly Clausell, Lillian Byrd, and Chris Clausell filed negligence lawsuits against the City of Jackson, the City of Raymond, and Alice Wilson. Before trial, the City of Raymond settled with the plaintiffs, leaving the City of Jackson and Alice Wilson as defendants. Following a bench trial, the circuit judge found that City of Jackson police officers had acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and apportioned twenty percent of the damages to the City of Jackson. The City of Jackson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The immunity found in section 11-46-9(1)(c) does not apply to acts or omissions performed by police in reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of one not engaged in criminal acts. Reckless disregard is a higher standard than gross negligence and that it involves willful or wanton conduct which requires knowingly or intentionally doing a thing or wrongful act. The following factors may support a finding of reckless disregard in connection with a police pursuit: length of the chase; type of neighborhood; characteristics of the streets; presence of vehicular or pedestrian traffic; weather conditions and visibility; seriousness of the offense for which the police are pursuing the suspect; whether the officer proceeded with sirens and blue lights; whether the officer had available alternatives which would lead to the apprehension of the suspect besides pursuit; existence of a police policy which prohibits pursuit under the circumstances; and rate of speed of the officer in comparison to the posted speed limit. The trial court in today’s case listed the ten factors and discussed some but not all of them. Notably, the trial court did not discuss the factors that tend to show the City of Jackson did not act with reckless disregard. The trial court’s finding that the JPD officers “acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others” is not supported by substantial evidence. Notably, the trial court did not discuss facts that tend to show that the City of Jackson did not act with reckless disregard: the streets were not particularly curvy, hilly, or poorly maintained; there was little to no traffic in the downtown Jackson area; the JPD officers engaged their blue lights and sirens during the pursuit; the JPD officers did not travel at an usually high rate of speed. The trial court also did not consider that the JPD officers had been ordered by their supervisor to monitor and assist with traffic and erroneously concluded that the officers did not have permission to aid in the pursuit. Finally, the JPD officers testified that they were motivated to aid Officer Razor out of concern for his safety within their jurisdiction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
