One week after reversing a $148,000 verdict against the City of Jackson, the Miss. Supreme Court affirmed a $500,000 verdict against the City in a wrongful death case. Here is the Court's opinion in Harris v. City of Jackson.
Like the case last week, this case involved a wreck caused by a Jackson police officer. Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Swan Yerger was the judge in both cases. But that is where the similarities end.
In the case last week, a police officer caused a wreck while responding to an emergency even though she proceeded through a red light slowly with siren and buzzer blaring. This week, the police officer was not responding to an emergency and was speeding through the red light with no siren or lights. Witnesses estimated that the police cruiser was going over 100 mph when it hit the victim's car.
There was an expert report for lost wages of $345,000. The total verdict was $500,000–-the maximum recoverable against a governmental entity.
On appeal, the City argued that it did not waive immunity under the Tort Claims Act because the police officer committed the crime of culpable-negligence manslaughter. The statute does not waive immunity when the employee's conduct constituted a criminal offense.
The Court rejected the argument, finding that the statute excludes “traffic offenses” from the criminal conduct immunity. The actual language of the statute (Miss. Code Ann. 11–46–5) states “traffic violations.”
The Court found that the officer's traffic violations were running a red light and speeding. Since these are traffic violations, the Court reasoned that the City waived immunity.
Justice Lamar wrote the Court's unanimous opinion. Plaintiff's counsel were Chuck Mullins and Merrida Coxwell. Kimberly Banks, Pieter Teeuiwissen and Claire Hawkins represented the City.
My Take:
This decision was a win for the facts of the case. The cop was an idiot and the victim did not deserve to die. Anyone who reads the facts should agree that it's only fair that the City lost. But the Tort Claims Act and general notions of fairness are often inconsistent.
This decision could be viewed as a result oriented decision that could have gone the other way on the law with different facts. The criminal violation that the City relied on was manslaughter—not a traffic violation.
Under the Court's rationale, a governmental entity is liable for any “reckless disregard” conduct as long as it involves a traffic violation in connection with a more serious crime. For example, the City would be liable if a drunk cop shoots his neighbor who he had been feuding with out of a moving cop car, if the car was traveling 20 mph in a 15 mph zone. But if the car was parked or only going 15 mph, the City would not be liable.
That would be fine with me, since I hate governmental immunity and believe that it creates a system that unfairly stacks the deck against victims. But I'm not sure that this decision was the legislature's intent.
