Opinion ID: 864447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether there a genuine issue of fact as to

Text: WHETHER TITUS WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT. ¶46. The defendants contend that when Titus entered the Flash Store and confronted the Butcher brothers, Titus had in fact had committed four different criminal activities involving simple assault (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(1)), disturbance in a public place (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-13), disturbance of the public peace by offensive language (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-15), and refusing to obey a police order (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7). Thus, they argue that the town is exempted from any possible liability to Titus because of his criminal activity. ¶47. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) exempts government entities from liability: 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 disregard of the safety and well-being of any person not engaged in criminal activity at the same time of the injury. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c) (emphasis added). In order for recovery from a governmental entity to be barred because of the victim's criminal activity, the criminal activity has to have some causal nexus 16 to the wrongdoing of the tortfeasor. City of Jackson v. Perry, 764 So.2d 373, 378-79 (Miss. 2000) (holding that a police official could not strike a pedestrian with his squad car during a high speed chase and be exempt from liability just because the pedestrian was in possession of untaxed whiskey). ¶48. Based on our previous determination that the Sardis Police Department committed no negligence toward Titus and exhibited no reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of Titus or the general public, this issue is dismissed as moot.