City of Jackson Files Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Archey v. Marriott Case
Here is the City of Jackson's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Archey v. Marriott. Prior posts on the case are here and here.
The City argues:
- the jury's apportionment of 30% fault to the City is not effective because Miss. Code Ann. 11–46–13 requires a judge to determine the City's liability.
- the City may not be held liable for the off-duty officer's conduct under Miss. Code Ann. 17–25–11(3), which states that acts of officers in discharge of private security employment are deemed acts of the entity employing the officer [Marriott]. The jury found that the officer was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Marriott.
- the City is immune from liability under Miss. Code Ann. 11–46–9(1)(c) because Archey was engaged in criminal acts.
- Plaintiff failed to prove that the officer acted with reckless disregard.
I haven't seen the response, but the City's pleading is persuasive.
I'm not sure why the plaintiff sued the City given this law and the lower damages cap applicable to the City under the Tort Claims Act. It seems like they would be looking for a reason to sue only Marriott. The law cited in the City's pleading gives plaintiff the argument to blame the whole incident on Marriott.
"I'm not sure why the plaintiff sued the City given this law and the lower damages cap applicable to the City under the Tort Claims Act."
To keep the case from being removed and defeat diversity? Only reason I can think of.
The City has a pretty good argument. The guy was either working for the City or Marriot at the time he pulled the trigger. Asking the jury to allocate fault between them was asking for an inconsistent verdict. In any event, look for this one to get reversed on appeal.
Oy, that makes my head hurt. Yes, the City is entitled to have a bench trial on its liability. Yes, Marriott is entitled to have fault assessed vs. the City by the jury.
The safest thing for the court to do, I guess, is reserve judgment on the City's fault, see what the jury does, and then just happen to agree with that, but more persuasive-like.
No matter what happens, it's f---ed up.
Anderson's suggestion that the judge wait and make a ruling that happens to line up perfectly with the jury's verdict (i.e. the judge finds the city 30% at fault) is the safest course only if the judge wishes to get reversed.
Accepting the jury's verdict as to the City's fault would be a fairly blatant disregard of the MTCA's bench trial provision.
The best way to avoid this is for the judge to rule before the jury verdict.
"Anderson's suggestion that the judge wait and make a ruling that happens to line up perfectly with the jury's verdict (i.e. the judge finds the city 30% at fault) is the safest course only if the judge wishes to get reversed."
I am trying to think on what grounds the court would reverse the judge for not "accepting the jury's verdict" but rather conducting his own fact-finding that happens to agree with the jury.
Is it now an article of faith that jury verdicts are so random and untrustworthy that an impartial factfinder could not come to the same result?
Nice moniker btw.
No question that diversity was the reason to sue the city. I think the Judge has an interesting out here because the standard of negligence against marriot is not the same as the reckless disregard required under tort claims act. Even though the jury assigned 30% of negligence to the city the judge can still find that the jury never opined on reckless disregard and the plaintiff never proved it, therefore city of Jackson is dismissed. Then we get to have the fun of deciding whether that decision would constitute "other paper" such that removal would now be proper. On the other hand if the judge finds the city liable for reckless disregard, it is also his job to decide what that seperate verdict should be. Thinking about what happens if his verdict somehow contradicts the jury's verdict makes my head hurt.