$23 Million Hinds County Verdict Against Marriott and City of Jackson is on Thin Ice
The Clarion-Ledger reported this morning on a $23 million Hinds County jury verdict yesterday against Marriott and the City of Jackson. According to the article:
The key question the jury had to decide was whether West was acting as a police officer or was he acting as a security officer for Marriott when he shot Archey.
Archey was seen walking on the parking garage ramp at the Marriott. West lost sight of him after he ran but eventually saw him run across the street and chased him off Marriott's premises. He eventually caught up with [ plaintiff Dale] Archey near the Robert E. Lee Building parking lot.
Deputy City Attorney James Anderson Jr. said West was working and being paid by Marriott when the shooting occurred. But Marriott's attorney, Brett Bollinger, said West wasn't acting as a security officer for the hotel once he left the premises to chase Archey.
****
West testified he was trying to handcuff Archey when Archey made a quick motion, leading him to think Archey may have been reaching for a knife or screwdriver, Bollinger said.
"Dale Archey made a sudden, quick move and Officer West had only a moment to react," Bollinger said. "He feared for his life."
No weapon was located.
West suspected Archey of breaking into cars in the Marriott garage. Plaintiff argued that Archey was homeless and planned to sleep in the garage.
The plaintiff asked for $16 million. The jury awarded $23 million. The jury apportioned 70% fault to Marriott and 30% to the City. That apportionment should result in the City owing zero (according to the City). The City will appeal anyway and by law, does not have to post an appeal bond.
Issues on appeal will include the following:
-
standing: Dale Archey was the plaintiff, but is institutionalized and could not be deposed. A conservatorship was set up, but never substituted as the plaintiff in the case.
-
Multiple evidentiary rulings: examples include that the trial court excluded evidence of Archey's criminal history. Archey beat a man to death at age 13 over a drug debt and served time. Archey was also arrested the day before the shooting and had a gun taken away from him. The defense theory was that Archey forgot he did not have his gun and was attempting to pull it when Officer West shot him. Defendants contended that Archey's past was relevant to liability and damages issues. Archey also pleaded guilty to resisting arrest.
It's my understanding that some of the evidentiary issues overlapped with the issues in the Rebelwood Apartments verdict discussed here.
Judge Winston Kidd was the trial judge. Dennis Sweet and Rick Patt of Jackson represented the plaintiff. Brett Bollinger of the Louisiana firm of Allen & Gooch represented Marriott. Deputy City Attorney James Anderson Jr. represented the City of Jackson.
It's well known that Dennis Sweet loves to draw out-of-state defense lawyers. The argument is that for whatever reason, out-of-state lawyers have trouble connecting with Mississippi juries and tend to exacerbate verdicts. Proponents of this theory can point to many massive verdicts with out-of-state defense lawyers and argue that the verdicts would have been less with Mississippi defense counsel.
It's also theorized that because of Mississippi's history with bet-the-company litigation, Mississippi defense lawyers tend to be more skilled than lawyers from other states who are less experienced in major litigation.
It's a safe bet none of those jurors live or work downtown, and have to put up with being accosted by the likes of Dale Archey on a daily basis.
How do you get zero for the city, instead of their MTCA limit?
I wouldn't think Louisiana juries are that much different from Mississippi juries, but it's odd Marriott wouldn't have local counsel.
I don't see how the excluded evidence was relevant, *if* the officer didn't know of it himself when dealing with Archey. When I'm evaluating whether to shoot a guy, the fact that he was violent last month is of no moment if I don't know that.
I don't see how the excluded evidence was relevant, *if* the officer didn't know of it himself when dealing with Archey. When I'm evaluating whether to shoot a guy, the fact that he was violent last month is of no moment if I don't know that.
I thought the same thing if it's an excessive force case. But since this was a premises case, I'm not sure if the same rationale applies. But regardless, it sounds like the evidence would be relevant to the economic damages claim under the Rebelwood decision.
On the zero on the City, that is the City's argument. I have not broken down the law on that issue.
Yes, maybe the liability & damages should've been bifurcated.
So they tried it as a premises case? Odd. What is the claim against the city then?
I find it unreal that in 2011, Marriott did not have Mississippi counsel in this case. I understand the Louisiana lawyer not wanting to share the billables, but whoever was managing this case in-house should have known better; has not read a paper, magazine article or Grisham novel in the last 15 years; or both. Such ignorance/arrogance just boggles the mind. This is Dilbert-Ostrich Style.
I am going to try to find out exactly what legal theories they used.