Opinion ID: 1732371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in finding reckless disregard when officer baker testified he had his lights and siren on and was responding to an emergency dispatch.

Text: ¶ 15. The City argues the trial court erred in finding Officer Baker was acting in reckless disregard to the safety of others when he was responding to an emergency dispatch. The City also argues that the care used in Officer Baker's pursuit was reasonable and necessary, and that because Officer Baker did not act in reckless disregard, the MTCA exempts the City from all liability. Lipsey, however, argues the trial court was correct in its finding that Officer Baker's conduct amounted to reckless disregard to all citizens lawfully traveling on McDowell Road. Lipsey also argues the trial court was correct in concluding the City was on notice due to Officer Baker's poor driving record. Therefore, according to Lipsey, Officer Baker and the City waived any claim of governmental immunity under the MTCA. ¶ 16. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9 states in pertinent part: (1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim: (c) Arising out of any act or omission of an employee of a governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless the employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury; (emphasis added). This Court has defined reckless disregard: While we agree that reckless disregard would encompass gross negligence, we hold that reckless disregard is a higher standard than gross negligence by which to judge the conduct of officers. Disregard of the safety of others is at least negligence if not gross negligence. Because reckless precedes disregard, the standard is elevated. As quoted above from Black's Law Dictionary, reckless, according to the circumstances, may mean desperately heedless, wanton or willful, or it may mean only careless, inattentive or negligence. Id. at 1270 (emphasis added). In the context of the statute, reckless must connote wanton or willful, because immunity lies for negligence. And this Court has held that wanton and reckless disregard are just a step below specific intent. See Evans v. Trader, 614 So.2d 955, 958 (Miss.1993). Turner v. City of Ruleville, 735 So.2d 226, 229-30 (Miss.1999). Our case law indicates `reckless disregard' embraces willful or wanton conduct which requires knowingly and intentionally doing a thing or wrongful act. Id. at 230 (citing Raney v. Jennings, 248 Miss. 140, 147, 158 So.2d 715, 718 (1963)). ¶ 17. Recently this Court has found several instances where a governmental entity has waived its immunity under the MTCA by acting in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of citizens not engaged in criminal acts. See City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So.2d 373 (Miss. 2000); Maye v. Pearl River County, 758 So.2d 391 (Miss.1999); Turner v. City of Ruleville, 735 So.2d 226 (Miss.1999). In Perry, at the time of the accident, a City of Jackson police officer was speeding without using his siren or blue lights. 764 So.2d at 375. At trial it was shown the officer was not responding to an emergency call, but was going to dinner. Id. This Court held the officer's conduct showed a reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of others. Id. at 378. ¶ 18. Similarly in Maye, a Pearl River County Deputy Sheriff backed his car up an incline to the entrance of a parking lot. 758 So.2d at 392. He collided with another driver who had pulled into the parking lot. Id. Although he checked his mirrors before backing up his car, the deputy sheriff testified he could not see the road from the parking lot because his view was obstructed. Id. We held the sheriff's deputy acted with a conscious indifference to the consequences of his actions, and those actions rose above simple negligence to the level of reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of others. Id. at 395. ¶ 19. Finally in Turner, (which involved a Miss.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal) the plaintiff's complaint alleged that an officer employed by the City of Ruleville Police Department pulled over a visibly intoxicated driver for operating his vehicle in an erratic manner. 735 So.2d at 227. Even though the driver was incapable of driving his car, the officer allowed him to continue driving. Id. The driver was later involved in a collision with Turner. Id. This Court held that the complaint stated a claim by alleging that the officer acted willfully and wantonly, which are synonymous with reckless disregard, in intentionally allowing a visibly intoxicated person to continue driving. Id. at 230. ¶ 20. Lipsey argues that the facts here are similar to the facts of the three cases cited above. Officer Baker was responding to an attempted auto burglary although he was not the primary nor secondary unit. The trial judge found from disputed testimony that Officer Baker was responding to the emergency dispatch without headlights, blue lights, or his siren in the hopes of not drawing attention to his vehicle. Baker admitted to speeding prior to turning in front of Lipsey. The City also had knowledge of Baker's six prior accidents and he was chargeable for at least two of those accidents. As this Court found in Perry, Maye, and Turner, Lipsey argues there is overwhelming evidence to conclude the actions of Officer Baker and the actions of the City rose to the level of reckless disregard to the safety and well-being of others. ¶ 21. However, the City argues the facts of the instant case are distinguishable as were the facts in Maldonado v. Kelly, 768 So.2d 906 (Miss.2000). In Maldonado, a deputy sheriff was approaching a very dangerous intersection. Id. at 908. Before proceeding through the intersection, the deputy sheriff came to a complete stop, looked to his right, then to his left but saw no oncoming traffic. Id. However, the deputy sheriff's view was partially blocked on his right, and a collision occurred. Id. This Court distinguished the facts of Maldonado from Perry, Maye, and Turner and determined: The common denominator in these cases is that the conduct involved evinced not only some appreciation of the unreasonable risk involved, but also a deliberate disregard of that risk and the high probability of harm involved.... There is no indication that Maldonado acted with deliberate disregard to the consequences of attempting to cross the intersection. To the contrary, there is every indication that Maldonado was aware of the nature of the intersection and took specific steps to avoid the collision. Id. at 910-11. This Court held the deputy sheriff's actions did not rise to the level of reckless disregard. Id. at 911. ¶ 22. The City contends that like the deputy sheriff in Maldonado, Officer Baker's actions did not rise to the level of reckless disregard. He was responding to an emergency dispatch, thus, he was acting in the usual course and scope of an officer's duty. The City argues it should be granted immunity under Mississippi law. ¶ 23. The trial court found as a fact, from disputed testimony, that Officer Baker responded to the emergency dispatch without turning on his headlights, blue lights or siren in an attempt to cut off the suspected auto thieves, and in so finding, the trial court held Officer Baker's conduct rose to the level of reckless disregard to the safety of others. The trial judge, sitting in a bench trial as the trier of fact, has the sole authority for determining the credibility of the witnesses. See Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So.2d at 1265; Hall v. State ex rel. Waller, 247 Miss. at 903,157 So.2d at 784. The trial judge saw these witnesses testify. Not only did [s]he have the benefit of their words, [s]he alone among the judiciary observed their manner and demeanor. [S]he was there on the scene. [S]he smelled the smoke of battle. [S]he sensed the interpersonal dynamics between the lawyers and the witnesses and [her]self. These are indispensable. Madden v. Rhodes, 626 So.2d 608, 625 (Miss.1993)(quoting Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So.2d 705, 708 (Miss.1983)). Rochell v. State, 748 So.2d 103, 110 (Miss. 1999). ¶ 24. Finding that the trial court applied the proper standard in determining the acts of Officer Baker and the City of Jackson rose to the level of reckless disregard to the safety of others, this argument is without merit. III. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS EXCESSIVE AND AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHEN LIPSEY IGNORED THE BLUE LIGHTS OF THE POLICE AND ONLY SUSTAINED $2,239.00 IN MEDICAL BILLS. ¶ 25. The findings of a circuit court judge sitting without a jury are safe on appeal where they are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence. City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So.2d at 376 (citing Puckett v. Stuckey, 633 So.2d 978, 982 (Miss.1993); Sweet Home Water & Sewer Ass'n v. Lexington Estates, Ltd., 613 So.2d 864, 872 (Miss.1993); Allied Steel Corp. v. Cooper, 607 So.2d 113, 119 (Miss.1992)). In Simpson v. City of Pickens, 761 So.2d 855 (Miss.2000), this Court adopted the preponderance of evidence standard of proof to be applied in all Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) cases. We hold that a governmental agency and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim arising out of any act or omission of an employee of a governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of any person (claimant) not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury. Id. at 859. Because we have affirmed the trial court's holding that Officer Baker acted in reckless disregard to the safety of others by failing to use his headlights, blue lights or siren, we will only address this issue as it relates to the award of damages. ¶ 26. The City argues the amount of damages awarded to Lipsey was excessive and was not supported by the evidence. Lipsey, however, argues the trial court correctly weighed all relevant evidence in determining the amount of damages which were to be awarded. ¶ 27. Without objection from opposing counsel, the trial court admitted into evidence Lipsey's exhibit which showed his medical expenses totaled $2,239.00. Lipsey also testified he lost wages as a result of the accident from his two jobs in the amount of $2,018.00 and the damage to his car totaled $2,800.00. Lipsey also testified in great detail about the pain he suffered the two weeks after the accident. He was unable to work either job. He was barely able to move and relied on his family to assist him during that two-week period. He was required to take pain medication for the injuries to his lower back. ¶ 28. The trial court determined Lipsey's undisputed damages, consisting of medical bills, lost wages and damage to his vehicle, amounted to $7,057.09. The trial court then determined Lipsey was entitled to $25,000 for past physical pain and suffering and mental anguish. ¶ 29. Considering the evidence the trial court evaluated in determining damages for Lipsey, the damages award is not unreasonable in amount as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. Harvey v. Wall, 649 So.2d 184, 187 (Miss.1995)(citing Rodgers v. Pascagoula Pub. Sch. Dist., 611 So.2d 942, 945 (Miss. 1992)). Therefore, this argument is without merit.