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.