### The “ Cit y of J ac kson” includes themuni cipal it y of J ac kson, theJa cks on Poli ce 1 

### Departme nt, and Of

fi ce r J ef fr ey Mi ddle ton in his off

ic ia l c apa ci ty. I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 0 9 2 8 - S CT CIT Y OF

J AC KS ON, M

I S S I S S I P P I AN D J AC KS ON P OL ICE DEP

AR T M EN T
v. EDNA H

ARRI S , I NDI VI DUALLY

AND AS AD M I NI S T RA T RI X O F T HE ES T AT E O F D ESM O N

D E H AR RIS AN

D JAM ES H AR RIS, I ND I VI DU ALLY
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 28/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : KI M BE RL Y B ANKS P I E T E R J OHN T E E UW I S S E N CL AI RE B. HAW KI NS A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EE: CH A RL ES R
. M U LLI N S M ERRI DA CO XW ELL NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 05/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h e C ity o f Ja c k so n a p p e a ls fro m a fin a l ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e w ro n g fu l- d e a th 1 benef i ci ar i es of

D es m onde H arr i s , w ho di ed i n a mot or - vehi cl e ac ci denti nvol vi ng a J acks on p o l i c e o f f i c e r . T h e Ci t y o f

J a c k s o n a s s e r t s t h a tt h e M i s s i s s i p p i T o r tCl a i ms Ac t( M T CA )

### Edna H arris filed th e complaint in her indiv idu al capacity an d as th e admin istratrix 2 

### of th e Estate o f Desmo nd e Harris. Th e Ben eficiar ie s su edM idd letonin h is ind ividual an d o fficial capacity . Prio r to 3 

### finaljudgm ent , Mi ddle ton wa s di sm is se d in hi s indivi dualca pac it y. 2 pr ecl udes l i abi l i t y i n t hi s cas e bec aus e H arr i s ’ s death w as t he r es ul tof cul pabl e- negl i gence
m ans l aught er . A l t ernat i vel y, t he C i t y of J acks on ar gues thatt he t r i al j udge err ed i n f i ndi ng it w a s the so le pro x im ate c au se o f H arris’ s d ea th an d in aw ard ing the w ron g ful-d e a th benef i ci ar i es $500, 000 i n damages
. Fi ndi ng no m er i ti n t hes e ar gum ent s , w e af f i r m the tr i al
c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. FACTS ¶ 2
. E d n a a n d Ja m e s H a rris ( “ B e n e fic iar ies ” ) file d a w ro n g fu l-d e a th s u it ag a in st th e C ity

2
o f Ja c k so n , alle g in g th a t itw a s lia b le f o r th e g ro ss ly n e g lig e n t an d re c k le s s d riv in g o f its empl oyee, O f

f i cerJ ef f r ey M i ddl et on. T he B enef i ci ar i es a l l eged thatM i ddl et on w as act i ng 3 in th e c o u rse a n d sc o p e o f h is e m p lo y m e n t w h e n h e o p e ra ted h is 1 9 9 9 w h ite C ro w n V icto ria atan exc es s i ve s peed, w i t houta s i r en orf l as hi ng f l i ght s , and col l i ded w i t h H arr i s ’ s 2000 r ed P o n tiac G ra n d A m . T h e B e n e fic iar ies a lleg e d th a t M id d leto n ’s c o n d u c t w a s th e so le pr oxi m at e ca us e of

H arr i s ’ s death. ¶3. T he C i t y of Jackson f i l ed i t s ans w er , i n w hi ch i tr ai s ed the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of im m u n ity u n d e r th e M T C A . T h e C ity o f Ja c k s o n a ls o m o v e d fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, cl ai m i ng i m m uni t y undert he M T C A
. N ot abl y, t he C i t y of Jackson l i s t ed the f

ol l ow i ng undi s put ed f

act s : A tt he t i m e of

t he ac ci dent , (1) M i dd l et on w as a J acks on pol i ce of f i cer

### 3

dr i vi ng a C i t y of

J acks on patr ol car ; ( 2) M i ddl et on st ruck H arr i s ’ s caras H arr i s w as
a ttem p tin g to tu rn le ft fro m H ig h w a y 1 8 o n to S iw e ll R o a d ; a n d (3 ) M id d leto n d id n o t ac tiv a te hi s bl ue l i ght s and s i r en. ¶4. T he C i t y of

J acks on ar gued thati tw as i m m une f r om l i abi l i t y, beca us e M i ddl et on had pl eade d gui l t y t o cul pabl e- negl i gence m ans l aught erf orthe dea t h of

H arr i s and had be en
or der ed t o s erve tw o year s i n t he cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Corr ect i ons . T he C i ty of J acks on f

ur t herar gued thatM i ddl et on coul d notbe act i ng i n t he cour s e and s cope of h is em p loy m en t i f his co n d u ct co n sti tuted the c rim e o f cu lpab le-ne g li g en ce m an slau g h ter. ¶5. In r espon se, t he B enefi ci ari es ar gu ed thatM i dd l et on ’s con du ctw as w i t hin the cou rs e and s cope of

hi s empl oym entunde rM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 5( 2)
. T he B enef i ci ar i es al s o ar gued thatM i ddl et on had ac t ed w i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d f or t he sa f

ety and w el l
- bei ng
o f H a rris, w h o w a s n o t en g a g e d in c rim in a l ac tiv ity a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t. ¶ 6
. T h e trial ju d g e d e n ied th e m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a n d th e c a se p ro c e e d e d to a benc h tr i al
. T he tr i al j udge hea r d t est i m ony fr om s i x i ndi vi dual s w ho had w i t nes s ed the
acc i dent
. J ames N obl e t es t i f i ed that , on the eve ni ng of J une 11, 2005, he and hi s gi r l f r i end
w er e dr i vi ng appr oxi m at el y 65 m i l es perhouron H i ghw ay 18 w hen a Ja cks on pol i ce c ar p asse d them li k e the y w ere “sit ti n g sti ll
. ” A cc o rdin g to N o b le, h e a n d h is girlf ri en d w ere abouta quart erof

a mi l e f r om a s t op l i ghtw hen the of f i cerpas s ed them, and the l i ghtw as yel l ow atthatt i m e. N obl e s t at ed that , i n hi s opi ni on, the patr ol carw as tr avel i ng atl eas t100
m il es p er h o u r.

### 4

¶7. N obl e t es t i f

i ed t hatt he l i ghttur ned r ed and had been r ed f orappr oxi m at el y t w enty- t othi r ty s econds w hen the pol i ce c arent er ed the i nt er s ect i on agai ns tt he r ed l i ghtand “t
- boned” the pas s engers i de of

a r ed cart hatw as at t empt i ng t o turn l ef t . N obl e s t at ed thatthe patr ol
carhad no emer gency l i ght s or s i r en act i vat ed. N obl e al s o t es t i f i ed thathe di d nots ee a ny br ake l i ght s on t he s quad ca runt i l i thi tthe r ed car. N obl e t es t i f i ed that , upon i m pact , t he
r eare nd of

the s quad carl i f

t ed appr oxi m at el y s i x ore i ghtf eeti nt o the ai r . N obl e s t at ed that he had c hecke d on t he dr i ver s of both c ar s a nd f

ound the of

f i cerbr eathi ng, butthe dr i verof the r ed ca rhad no pul s e. ¶ 8
. K e lly S tev e rso n tes tified th a t o n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , sh e w a s trav e lin g fro m R a y m o n d to Jac k so n w ith h er b o y fri en d an d sist er, an d h er sp ee d w as ap p rox im ately 6 5 m il es p er h o u r. St ever s on s t at ed thata patr ol carpas s ed herl i ke s he w as “s i t t i ng s t i l l , ” and thati n her opi ni on, t he ca rhad exc eede d 100 m i l es perhour
. St ever s on s t at ed thats he di d nots ee a ny bl ue l i ght s orhearan emer gency s i r en. St ever s on t es t i f i ed thatt he t raf

fi c s i gnal w as r ed
w hen the of

f i cerent er ed the i nt er s ect i on, and t hatshe di d nots ee a ny br ake l i ght s bef or e the col l i s i on. ¶9. A ndr ew Sl ade t es t i f i ed thathe w as tr avel i ng w es ton H i ghw ay 18 w hen a s quad ca r pas s ed hi m ata hi gh r at e of s peed. Sl ade t es t i f

i ed t hatt he squa d carhad notact i vat ed i t s bl ue li g h ts o r s ire n , a n d h e b eli ev ed that the c ar w as trav eli n g in ex ce ss o f 10 0 m il es p er h o u r. Sl ade s t at ed thathe di d notsee t he col l i s i on, butw hen he t opped the hi l l l eadi ng t o t he in ter se c tio n , h e sa w th e re w a s a n a c c id e n t an d a re d lig h t.

### 5

¶1 0
. B o b b ie S lade test if ied tha t she w as trav eli n g w ith h er h u sb an d o n H igh w ay 1 8 tow ard J acks on. She s t at ed thata pol i ce c ar“f l ew pa s t ” and w as goi ng m or e than 100 mi l es perhour
w i thouta ny bl ue l i ght s ora s i r en. Sl ade t es t i f i ed s he di d nots ee the col l i s i on, butthats he had che cked on the occ upant s of both car s w hen she ar r i ved atthe s cene . Sl ade t es t i f i ed that
s he had thoughtbot h occupa nt s w er e dea d. ¶1 1. M i chel l e Fea z e l l t e s t i f i e d t ha t s he w a s t r a ve l i ng on H i gh w a y 18 w he n a s quad ca r pas s ed her
. Feaze l l s t at ed thats he w as sl ow i ng dow n f orthe yel l ow s i gnal l i ghtw hen the of f i cerpas s e d he rc a r . She t e s t i f i e d t ha tthe l i gh twas r e d w he n t he o f f i c e re nt e r e d t he i nt er s ect i on and hi ta r ed ca ras i tw as t r yi ng t o m ake a l ef tturn. Feaze l l al s o s t at ed thatthe of f i cerhad notact i vat ed any l i ght s ora s i r en, and thatt he i nt er s ect i on w as l i tw i t h s tr eet l i gh t s. F eazel l t est i fi ed thatshe che cked on l y o n the off i cer, w ho w as unco nsci ou s. ¶12. K aw anda A l l en t es t i f i ed t hatshe w as ri di ng w i t h hercousi n, F eaz el l , w hen a s quad
carpa s s ed them ata hi gh s peed, s haki ng t hei rcar . A l l en s t at ed thats he di d nots ee a ny bl ue l i ght s orheara s i r en. A ccor di ng t o A l l en, they w er e aboutf i f t y t o s i xty yar ds f

r om t he i nter sect i on w hen the s quad ca rpas s ed them. A l l en s t at ed thatthe l i ghtw as r ed w hen the
s quad ca rent er ed the i nt er s ect i on. ¶ 1 3
. J e f

f r e y M i d d l e t o n t e s t i f

i e d t h a ti n J u n e 2 0 0 5 , h e wa s wo r k i n g th e 2 p . m. - t o - 1 0 p . m.
s hi f t . O n the ni ghtof

the acc i dent , he ha d r es ponded t o a tr af f i c i nci denti nvol vi ng a drunk dr i ver . H e had tr ans por t ed t he i m pai r ed dr i vert o the H i nds C ount y C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty and had l ef tthe f aci l i t y a f ew m i nut es af

t er10 p. m . t o he ad t o the hos pi t al , w her e t he otherdr i ver
w as bei ng t r eat ed.

### Th e Ben eficiaries admittedinto e v id en ce a repo rt writtenbySerg eant C otto n, in 4 

### wh i c h h e c on cluded that

Mi ddl e t onha d h a d a

r e d l i ght and Harri s ha d h a d a

gre e n arr ow . In hi s report, Cott on al so c oncluded that thepre im pac t s pee d of the poli cecar was ei the r 98 or 99 m il es per

hour. 6 ¶14. M i ddl et on t es t i f

i ed t hat i t w as a cool , cl ear ni ght and t hat t r af f i c w as extr emel y l i ght on H i ghw ay 18. M i ddl et on s t at ed t hathe onl y r emem ber s s eei ng a r ed carturni ng i n f r ont of hi m and a t r af

f i c s i gnal s how i ng a gr een l i ght
. M i ddl et on t es t i f i ed thathe s uf

f er ed a he ad i n j u ry i n t h e a c c i d e n ta n d a s a r e s u l t , c o u l d n o tr e me mb e ra n y o t h e rd e t a i l s o f th a tn i g h t . He al s o s t at ed thathe w as on overt i m e at t he t i m e of acc i dent
. M i ddl et on t es t i f i ed he w as t erm i nat ed f

r om hi s j ob becaus e of

t he acc i dent , and t hathe had pl eade d gui l t y t o cul pabl enegl i gence m ans l aught erf orH arr i s ’ s death. ¶15. Ser geant Sam uel G ar dner w i t h t he J acks on Pol i ce D epart m ent conduct ed an i nt ernal af f ai r s i nves t i gat i on r egar di ng t he ac ci dent
. G ar dnert es t i f i ed thathe had c oncl uded M i ddl et on w as on dut y att he t i m e of acc i dentand thatM i ddl et on had comm i t t ed of f ens es i ncl udi ng car el es s dri vi ng and hom i ci de. Ser geantJ os eph C ot t on t es t i f i ed as an expe r ti n t he f i el d of acc i dentr econs t ruct i on. H e s t at ed thatM i ddl et on’ s pre i m pactspee d w as 98 m i l es 4 p er h o u r an d h is i m p ac t sp ee d w as 8 7 m il es p er ho u r. C o tt o n also stat ed that the ro ad b o re prei m pact s kid m arks, i nd i cat i ng t hat M i dd l et on had act i vated hi s brakes. ¶16. T he t r i al cour t al s o hear d t es t i m ony f r om E dna and J ames H arr i s , w ho t es t i f i ed about th e los s o f th e ir so n . E d n a an d Ja m e s te stifie d tha t Ja m e s w a s th e ir y o u n g e st c h ild a n d o n ly
s on, w ho w as t w ent y- t hr ee a tt he t i m e of hi s death. E dna s t at ed thatH arr i s had gr aduat ed f r om hi gh school and had f i ni s hed tr ade s chool t o be a ba rber
. E dna s t at ed thatH arr i s had

### Koer ber te stif ie d on beha lf

of the Be nef

ic iari es . The Stat e did not off er any expe rt 5 

### witn esses. 7 pl anned t o o pe n a ba rbe rs ho p wi t h h i s s i s t e r , w ho i s a be a ut i c i a n. Edna a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha t the f uner al cos t s w er e $7, 037 and the hea ds t one cos t$636. ¶17. T he tr i al co urtacce pted Jam es K oerber as an expertw i t nes s i n the f i el d of t ax, economi cs , and fi nance. K oerbert es t i f i ed thathe ca l cul at ed H arr i s ’ s l os tearni ngs t o be 5 $345, 000. K oerbert es t i f i ed t hatH arr i s had a l i f

e expe ct ancy of

53. 1 year s , w i t h an annua l
w age of $21, 420 as a barberi n M i s s i s s i ppi
. K oerberal s o s t at ed thathe had us ed a
cons um pt i on f

act orof 49. 33 pe r centi n hi s cal cul at i ons . K oerbert es t i f i ed thathe had r el i ed upon met hods a nd c al cul at i ons thatar e gene r al l y acc ept ed w i t hi n t he ec onom i c comm uni ty. ¶18. A f

t er t he t r i al , t he j udge ent er ed hi s f i ndi ngs of f

act and concl us i ons of l aw and f i nal j u d g me n t . Th e j u d g e f

o u n d t h a tHa rr i s wa s n o te n g a g e d i n a n y c r i mi n a l a c t i v i t y a tt h e t i me
o f his d ea th an d that h e w as tr av eli n g so u th o n H igh w ay 1 8 , att em p ti n g to m ak e a leftturn on a gr een a r r ow . H e f

ur t herfound thatM i ddl et on had ent er ed t he i nt er s ect i on agai ns ta r ed li g h t w ith a p reim p ac t spe ed of 99 m il es p er ho u r and an i m p ac t sp ee d of 8 7 m il es p er h o u r. T h e ju d g e fo u n d th a t H a rris h a d b e e n a ffo rd e d n o o p p o rtu n ity to a v o id the ac c id e n t, d u e to M i ddl et on’ s s peed. H e conc l uded thatM i ddl et on had bee n act i ng i n t he cour s e and s cope
o f his em p loy m en t w h en h e rec k lessly d isr eg ard ed the s afe ty o f oth ers a n d ca u sed H arris’ s death. T he j udge rul ed thatt he B enef i ci ar i es w er e ent i t l ed t o damages f orl os s of s oci ety and compani ons hi p, and he a l s o acc ept ed K oerber ’ s t es t i m ony t hatH arr i s ’ s l os tearni ngsMiss. D ep’t of P u b. S afet

y v. D u rn , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ). 6I d. 

### The City of Ja cks on argue s that thi s Court should af ford les s def

er enc e t o thetria l 7 

### judge ’s f indings of fa ct

be ca usehea dopte d ve rbatim thef indings of fa ct and c onclusi ons of law subm itte d by theBene fi ci arie s. But therec ord does not c ontain t he f indings of fa ct and conc lus ions of l aw s ubmi tt ed by e ac h party. In f ac t, thi s Cour

t de nie d theCit

y of J ac kson’ s motion t o expand there cord t o include thef indings of fa ct

and c onclusi ons of l aw s ubmi tt ed bye a c h p arty. Th e r e f

ore , wewi l la

pp ly a m ani f e s t - e rr or s t and ar d o f

r e vi e w. L . T . ex r el . Hol lins v. Cit

y of Jacks on , 145 F. Supp. 2d 750 ( S. D
. M i s s . 2000)


### . 8 City o f J a c kso n v. P o w e ll , 9 1 7 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 (2 0 0 5 ). 9 

### 8 am o u n ted to $ 3 4 5 , 0 0 0
. T h e jud g e a w ard ed the B en eficiari es $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in co m p en sato ry dam ages. DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he M T C A precl udes l i abi l i t y agai nst a governm ent al ent i t y w here t he em pl oyee’ s conduct cons t i t ut ed a cri m i nal of f ens e. ¶19. “I m m uni t y i s a quest i on of l aw [ , ] ” and t his C our t conduct s a de novo r evi ew of t he appl i cat i on of

t he M T C A
. Fur t herm or e, “[ a] ci r cui tcour tj udge si t t i ng w i t houta t r i erof f act 6 i s gi ven the s ame def

er ence w i t h r egar d t o hi s fa ctfi ndi ng as a cha ncel l or , and hi s f i ndi ngs
a re s a fe o n a p p e a l w h e n th e y a re su p p o rt e d b y su b s ta n tia l, c re d ib le , a n d re lia b le e v id e n c e .” 7 ¶20. T he C i t y of Jackson argues t hat t he M T C A w ai ves i m m uni t y under cert ai n l i m i t ed circu m stan ce s, an d that n o w aive r ex ist s u n d er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -4 6 -7 (2 ) for a
cr i m i nal of

f ens e. I tar gues t hatan empl oyee c annot be ac t i ng i n t he cour s e and s cope of
em p loy m en t w h en the e m p loy ee ’s acti o n s co n sti tute cu lpab le-ne g li g en ce m an slau g h ter. In supp ortof i t s ar gu m ent, t he C i t y o f J ackson ci t es L . T . ex rel . Hol lins v. Cit y of Jacks on and

8 City o f J a c kso n v. P o w e ll
. 9L. T. e x r e l . Hol lins , 145 F. Supp. 2d at757. 10I d. 11 P o w e ll , 917 So. 2d at72- 73. 12Id
. at72- 73. 13 

### SeeMis s. Code Ann. § 11-46- 5(2) (Re v. 2002)
. 14 

### 9 ¶21. I n L. T. e

x r e l . Hol lins , the d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t th e C ity o f Ja c k so n w a s n o t li a b le f orthe ac t i ons of

an on- duty po l i ce of

f i cerw ho had s exual l y as s aul t ed a young w om an. 10 T h e c o u rtfou n d tha t th e o ffi ce r’s sex u al m isco n d u ct w as n o t i n fu rth era n ce o f th e e m p loy er’s b u sin e ss so a s to b e w ith in th e sc o p e a n d c o u rse o f e m p lo y m e n t. L i kew i s e, i n P o w e ll , this 11 C o u rt fo u n d th e C ity o f Ja c k so n im m u n e fro m liab ili ty w h e re a p o lice o ffic e r a c ted w ith
m al i ce by us i ng exce s s i ve f or ce on a n arr es t ee. T he C ourti nt erpr et ed M i s s i s s i ppi C ode 12 Sect i ons 11- 46- 5( 2) and 11- 46- 7( 2) and f ound thatt he empl oyee ha d act ed out s i de the s cope and cour s e of

empl oym entby act i ng w i t h m al i ce. 13 ¶2 2
. C o n v e rsely, the B e n e fic iar ies a rg u e th a t L. T. ex r e l . Hol lins and P o w e ll

are di s t i ngui s habl e, beca us e the governm ent al empl oyees i n t hos e ca s es comm i t t ed i nt ent i onal to rts, n o t tr affic offen ses. T h e B en eficiari es a rgu e tha t th e C ity o f Jac k so n fail s to c it e M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 5( 2) , w hi ch w ai ves i m m uni t y f ortr af f i c vi ol at i ons t hat
c o n stitu te c rim in a l o ffe n se s. T h e B e n e fic iar ies fu rth e r a rg u e th a t th e p h ra se “ c u lp a b le 14
n e g l i g e n c e ” i s s y n o n y mo u s wi t h “ r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d ” u n d e rth e M T CA
.M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 7( 1) ( R ev. 2002)


### . 15 M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -7 (2 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 16 M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -5 (2 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 17 

### 10 ¶2 3
. U n d e r M iss issipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 11 -46 -7, th e M T C A pro v ides th e e x c lu siv e c iv il
rem edy fort ortact i on s agai nstt he st at e, i t s poli t i cal subd i vis i on s, and i t s em ployees. 15 S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -7 fu rth e r p ro v id e s th a t: Forthe purpos es of

thi s c hapt er , a n e m pl oyee s hal l notbe cons i der ed as act i ng i n the cour s e and s cope of hi s empl oym entand a governm entalent i t y s hal lnot b e lia b le o r b e c o n sid e re d to h a v e w a iv e d

im m u n ity fo r a ny c o n d u c t o f it s em ployee i f the em ployee’s con du ctcon st i t uted f raud , m ali ce, l i bel, slan der, defam ati on or any cri m i na loff ense . 16 H o w e v e r, M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -5 p ro v id e s th a t: Fort he purpos es of

thi s c hapt era n e m pl oyee s hal l notbe cons i der ed as act i ng w i thi n the cour s e and s cope hi s empl oym entand a g o v e rn m e n ta l en tit y sh a ll n o t b e lia b le o r b e c o n sid e re d to h a v e w a ive d

im m u n ity fo r a ny c o n d u c t o f it s em ployee i f the em ployee’s con du ctcon st i t uted f raud , m ali ce, l i bel, slan der, def am at i on orany cr i m i nalof f ens e otherthan tr af

f i c vi olat i ons . 17 ¶2 4
. W e fi n d th at th e C ity of Jac k so n i s l iable for M idd let o n ’s co n d u ct un d e r th e p lain l anguage of

Sect i on 11- 46- 5( 2)
. W hi l e Sect i on 11-46- 7( 2) provi des i m m uni t y f or“cr i m i nal of f ens es , ” Sect i on 11- 46- 5( 2) s peci f i cal l y excl udes “tr af

f i c of f ens es” f r om t hi s i m m uni ty. M i ddl et on’ s gui l t y pl ea t o cul pabl e- negl i gence m ansl aught erdoes notchange the f actt hat M idd let o n c a u sed H arris’ s d ea th b y v iolati n g the traffi c law s o f th is st ate. M idd let o n ’s
co n d u ct co n sti tuted sp ee d ing an d run n ing a re d li g h t, tr affic offen ses tha t are m isde m ea n o rsSee M iss . C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -3 -2 0 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ) (d e c lar in g th a t b re a c h o f tra ffic 18 of f ens es and rul es of

t he r oad ar e mi s demeanor s ) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 63- 3- 309 ( R ev. 2004) ( decl ar i ng thatdr i ver s m us tobey tr af f i c l i ght s ) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 63- 3- 501 ( R ev. 2004) ( decl ar i ng t hat“no per s on s hal l oper at e a ve hi cl e on the hi ghw ays of the s t at e ata s peed g rea ter th an sixty-fi v e (6 5 ) m il es p er h o u r”). M iss. C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -3-2 0 5 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). 19 See Miss. D ep’t

of P u blic S afet

y v. D u rn , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ) (fin d in g sta te 20 tr ooperact ed i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of s af ety of ot her s by t r avel i ng atexce s s i ve s peed i n ar ea o f lim ite d v isib ili ty a n d n u m e ro u s b u sin e ss e s); Cit y of Jac kson v. P erry , 764 So. 2d 373 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ) (fin d in g C ity o f Ja c k so n p o lice o ffic e r ac ted w ith re c k les s d isre g a rd fo r sa fe ty o f o th e rs b y sp e e d in g w ith o u t u se o f s ire n s o r b lu e lig h ts e n ro u te to d in n e r); Maye v. Pea rl R ive r C o u n ty , 758 So. 2d 391 ( M i s s . 1999) ( f i ndi ng s her i f

f act ed w i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d f or s af ety of other s by backi ng hi s pa t r ol c arup an i ncl i ne t o the entr ance of a parki ng l ot w ith o u t bein g ab le t o see inco m ing tr affic). 

### 11 ( and, as s uch, “cr i m i nal of f ens es ”) underourC ode. Fur t herm or e, “[ n] o dr i vero f any 18 author i zed em er gency ve hi cl e s hal l as s um e any s peci al pr i vi l ege . . . exce ptw hen s uch vehi cl e i s oper at ed i n r es pons e t o an emer gency cal l ori n the i m m edi at e pur s ui tof an ac tual
o r su sp e c ted v io la to r o f th e law .” It is u n d isp u ted th a t M id d leto n w a s n o t o p e ra tin g h is 19

v e h icle in re sp o n se to a n y e m e rg e n c y o r in p u rsu it o f a su sp e c t, bu t th a t h e w a s tra v e lin g to the h o sp it al t o p rov ide in su ran ce info rm ati o n to an injured d ri v er. ¶ 2 5
. F u rth e rm o re , w e ag re e w ith th e B e n e fic iar ies th a t L. T. e x r e l . Hol lins and P o w e ll

are di s t i ngui s habl e, as t hos e ca s es do noti nvol ve any type of tr af f i c vi ol at i on. Thi s C our thas uphel d governm ent al l i abi l i t y i n cas es w her e i t s of f i cer s have c om m i t t ed tr af f i c of f ens es
r es ul t i ng i n m ot or - vehi cl e ac ci dent s . In thes e cas es , t he C our tanal yzed a notherpr ovi s i on 20 of the M T C A , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 9, w hi ch s peci f i cal l y addr es s es pol i ce
c o n d u c t an d p ro v id e s th a t:M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( c ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 21 Tu rn e r v . City o

f R u lev ille , 73 5 So
. 2d 22 6, 2 3 0 ( M is s. 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o Maye v. 22 P e a rl R ive r C o u n ty , 7 5 8 S o . 2 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 4 -95 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ) (q u o ti n g the F if th C ir cu itC o u rt o f A p p ea ls’ d efinit ion o f “rec k less d isr eg ard ”). 

### 12 ( 1) A gover nm ental ent i t y and i t s empl oyees act i ng w i t hi n t he cour s e and s c o p e o f t h e ire m p lo y m e n t o r d u tie s s h a ll n o t b e lia b le fo r a n y c la im
. . . .

. . . (c) A ri sing o u t of an y ac t or o m issi o n o f an em p loy e e o f a governm ent al e nt i t y e ngaged i n the per f or m ance orexec ut i on of dut i es oract i vi t i es r el at i ng to pol i ce orf i r e pr ot ect i on unl es s the em pl oyee act ed i n rec kl es s dis r egar d o f the saf et y and w el l

- bei ng of

any per s on no teng ag ed in cri m i na lacti vi t y at the ti m e of i njury
. 21 T he C ou rt , i n Tu rn e r v . City o f R u lev ille , ann ou nced the fol l ow i ng defi nit i on of “r eckles s di s r egar d”: W h i l e we a g r e e t h a tr e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d wo u l d e n c o mp a s s g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e , we hol d t hatr eckl es s di s r egar d i s a hi ghers t andar d t han gr oss negli gence by w hich t o judge the con du ctof off i cers . “D i sr egard” o f the safety o f others i s atl eastneg l i gen ce i f notgross negl i gence . Becaus e “r eckl es s ” pr ece des “ di s r egar d, ” t he s t andar d i s el evat ed

. . . “re c k les s,” a c c o rd in g to th e c irc u m sta n c e s, “ m a y m e a n d e sp e ra tely h e e d le s s , w a n to n o rw illf u l, ori tm ay mean onl y car el es s , i nat t ent i ve or negl i gence . ” [ B l ack’s Law D i ct i onar y 1270 ( 6th e d. 1991) ]
. I n the cont extof the s t atut e, r eckl es s m us tconnot e “w ant on orw i l l f ul , ” bec aus e i m m uni t y l i es forneg l i gen ce. A nd t h i s C ou rthas held t hat “w anton” an d “reckles s d is re g a rd ” a re ju s t a s te p b e lo w s p e c if ic in te n t. See E vans v. T r ader , 614 So. 2d 955, 958 ( M i s s . 1993)
. T he C our thel d i n Evans t hati n or dert o def eatan i m m uni t y def

ens e undert he comm on l aw , the pla i nt i f f w oul d have t o s how thatt he of

f i cerent ert ai ned a s peci f i c i nt ent . “I tw oul d s uf

f i ce t o s how that[ t he o ff ic e r] a c te d w ith w a n to n a n d r e c k le s s d is re g a rd fo r [ th e p la in tif f’ s ] sa fe ty .” 22 ¶26. N ot abl y, t he t erm “r eckl es s di s r egar d” has a s i m i l ardef i ni t i on t o cul pabl e- negl i gence
m ans l aught er . I n Ch a n dlerv. S ta te , thi s C our tdef i ned cul pabl e- negl i gence m ans l aught er
as:Ch a n dlerv. S ta te , 9 4 6 S o . 2 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). 23 

### 13 “‘ [ T ] he cons ci ous and w ant on orre ckl es s di s r egar d of t he pr obabi l i t i es of

f at al con sequen ces t o o t hers as a res ultof the w i l ful creat i on of an un reas on able r i sk ther eof
. ’ ” E v a n s v . S ta te , 562 So. 2d 91, 94 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 1 9 7 M iss
. 8 0 2 , 2 0 S o . 2 d 7 0 1 , 7 0 1 (1 9 4 5 )). T h is C o u rt m o re re c e n tly def i ned mansl aught erby cul pabl e negl i gence as “s uch gr os s negl i gence . . . as t o evi nce a w ant on orr eckl es s di s r egar d f ort he s af

ety of human l i f

e, ors uch an i ndi f f er ence t o t he con sequenc es of an ac tunderthe s urr oundi ng ci rcum st ances as t o rende r s uch con du ctt ant amountt o w i l l f ul nes s . ” Sh u m

pert v. S ta te , 935 So. 2d 962, 967 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng E v a n s v . S ta te , 562 S o. 2d 9 1 , 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). 23 ¶2 7. W e f

i nd t ha t s ub s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s up po r t s t he t r i a l j ud ge ’ s f i nd i ng s t ha tM i dd l et on
w as on duty and r es pondi ng t o a non- emer gency c al l w hen he dr ove appr oxi m at el y 98 m i l es per hour throug h a r ed l i gh tas H arr i s w as att em pti ng t o m ake a l eft -hand turn. E very w i tness ( exce ptM i ddl et on) t es t i f i ed thatM i ddl et on had bee n dr i vi ng atan exc es s i ve s peed w i thout hi s emer gency l i ght s ors i r en. Sever al w i t nes s es s aw t he col l i s i on and t es t i f i ed that M i ddl et on had di s r egar ded a r ed l i ghtw hen he had pr ocee ded thr ough t he i nt er s ect i on and col l i ded w i t h H arr i s . Fur t herm or e, the C i t y of J acks on di d notar gue att r i al oron appea l t hat H arr i s w as engage d i n any cr i m i nal act i vi t y att he t i m e of t he ac ci dent
. So w e agr ee w i th the tr i al cour tthatM i ddl et on act ed w i t h re ckl es s di s r egar d f ort he s af ety of ot her s underSect i on 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(c ). H is a c tio n s fa ll w ith in th e d e fin iti o n o f r e c k les s d isre g a rd p ro n o u n c e d b y th is C ou rti n the City o

f R u lev ille . A s s uc h, the tr i a l c ou r twas c orr e c ti n ho l di ng the Ci ty of Ja c k so n liab le f

o r M id d leto n ’s a c tio n s th a t o c c u rre d in th e c o u rse a n d sc o p e o f h is
e m p lo y m e n t.

### See Mis s. Code Ann. §§ 63-3- 505, 63- 3-805 ( Rev. 2004). 24 See Mis s . Mun. L iabilit y Plan v. Jor dan , 863 S o. 2 d 934, 940 ( M i s s . 2003) 25 ( “[ W ] her e a pa r t y f

ai l s t o r ai s e an i ssue be for e the tr i al cour t , w e ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed fr o m c o n s id e ri n g th a t is s u e .” ). M iss. C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -3-8 0 5 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). 26 

### 14 I I . W het her t he tr i al court erre d i n fai l i ng t o m ake a f i ndi ng of

cont ri butor y negl i gence and i n ass es s i ng a dam ages aw ard of $500, 000. ¶2 8. T he C i t y of J a c ks on a r gu e s i t e s t a bl i s he d t ha t H a r r i s w a s a pr ox i mat e c on t r i bu t i ng
caus e of the acci dent , and thatt he tr i al j udge s houl d have a ppor t i oned f aul t . I tar gues t hat H arr i s w as contr i but ar i l y negl i gentbe caus e he vi ol at ed M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 63- 3- 805 and 63- 3- 505. I tf

ur t hera r gues thatthe C our te r r ed i n a w ar di ng da m ages i n the amount of $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 . C o n v e rse ly , the B e n e fi c iar ies a rg u e th e trial ju d g e ’s f in d in g s a re e n tit led to def er ence and thatt hes e code s ect i ons s uppor tthe C i t y of J acks on’ s l i abi l i t y. 24 ¶29. T he C i t y of J acks on di d notar gue Sect i on 63-3- 505 bef or e t he t r i al cour t , and as s uch, it i s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m ra isin g th is a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. B u t th e C ity o f Ja c k so n d id 25
a rg u e H a rris’ s lia b ili ty u n d e r S e c tio n 6 3 -3 -8 0 5 , w h ich p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt th a t: T h e d riv e r o f a v e h icle sh a ll sto p as req u ire d b y this ch a p ter a t th e e n tra n c e to a t hr ou gh hi gh w a y a nd s ha l l yi e l d the r i gh t - of
- w a y t o o t he rve hi c l e s w hi ch h av e e n tered the in tersection from said thro u g h h igh w ay o r w h ich a re a p p ro a c h in g so clo se ly o n sa id th ro u g h h ig h w a y a s to c o n stitu te a n im m e d iate haza r d. 26 ¶30. T he t ri al j udge f ound t hat H arr i s had ent er ed t he i nt er s ect i on on a gr een arr ow and
c o u ld n o t ha v e av o id e d the co lli sio n . T h e tri a l j u d g e fu rth e r fo u n d tha t M id d leto n w a s s o lely atf aul ti n s peedi ng t hr ough t he i nt er s ect i on agai nsta r ed l i ght
. T he tr i al j udge’ s f i ndi ngsSee McN eil v. Hes ter , 7 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 7 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); s ee al s o M i s s . R
. A pp. 27 P. 28(a ) ( 6) (“ T he ar gum ents hal l cont ai n the cont ent i ons of the appe l l antw i t h r es pectt o t he i ssues pr esent ed, and t he reasons fort ho se content i on s, w i t h cit at i on s to th e authori t i es, statu tes an d p arts of the rec o rd re li ed o n . ”). 

### 15 s how t hatM i ddl et on, notH arr i s , vi ol at ed Sect i on 63-3- 805. T he t r i al j udge’ s fi ndi ngs of f act
ar e ent i t l ed t o a mani f es t - err ors t andar d of

r evi ew , and w e ca nnots ay the tr i al j udge
m ani f es t l y err ed i n as s i gni ng 100 per centof the f aul tt o t he C i t y of

J acks on. Fur t herm or e, the C i ty of J ackson i s procedu ral l y b arr ed fr om con t est i ng t he aw ard of $50 0, 00 0, becau se itfail ed to cite an y au tho ri ty in su p p o rto f th is assign m en t of erro r. 27 CO NC L US I ON ¶31. W e af

f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s j udgm ent and hol d t hat t he C i t y of J acks on i s l i abl e t o t he B enef i ci ar i es i n t he amountof $500, 000. ¶32. AF F I RM ED . W ALLER, C. J . , CAR LS ON , P. J . , DI CK I NSON, RAN DO LPH, CH AND LER AND P I ER CE, J J . , CONCUR. GR AV E S , P . J . , AN D K I T CH E NS , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .