Police Officers Immune From Suit

Statutory Immunity Defeats Suit for Wrongful Death Suit Against Police Officers
Post 5077

Claim of Wrongful Death by Taser Fails

When a wrongful-death claim brought by Clayton Franklin, the administrator of his son Cody's estate, against the City of Ozark and two police officers following Cody's death in custody resulted in a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Franklin appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations did not apply and that the defendants were not immune from the claim.

In Clayton Franklin As Adminstrator For The Estate Of Cody J. Franklin v. City Of Ozark, Arkansas; Nathan Griffith; And Joseph Griffith, No. CV-24-331, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division IV, 2025 Ark.App. 308 (May 14, 2025) the trial court's decision was affirmed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Wrongful Death Claim: Clayton Franklin filed a wrongful-death claim after his son Cody died while detained, alleging negligence and excessive force by the officers.
Background of Incident: The case originated from events on May 10-11, 2016, when Cody was arrested after behaving erratically and subsequently died after being tased multiple times by officers.
Federal Court Proceedings: Initially, the case was filed in federal court, where claims against municipalities were dismissed, and the Eighth Circuit found the officers acted reasonably, granting them qualified immunity.
Circuit Court Rulings: The circuit court dismissed the second amended complaint, ruling that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity under Arkansas law.
Immunity and Negligence: The court held that the allegations of "willful and wanton" conduct did not rise to the level of intentional torts, thus granting immunity to the defendants as per Arkansas Code.
STATUTORY IMMUNITY

In issuing a blanket ruling, as the circuit court did here, a circuit court is deemed to have accepted all arguments advanced by the prevailing party. The circuit court therefore accepted appellees' arguments that the second amended complaint should be dismissed because the statute of limitations barred appellant's claims and because appellees were entitled to statutory immunity under Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-9-301.

ANALYSIS

An affidavit stating that there is no general-liability coverage establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The mayor's affidavit sufficiently established that the City did not possess general-liability insurance at the time of the incident to cover appellant's claims and immunity of the officers was established.

The Court of Appeals concluded that circuit court did not err in dismissing the second amended complaint after finding that appellees were immune to appellant's wrongful-death claims as alleged, it is unnecessary for the Court of Apeals to address the circuit court's alternative basis for dismissal.

ZALMA OPINION

This is essentially a sovereign immunity case where, if there is no insurance available for negligent conduct of police officers, the city and its officers are immune from suit unless the governmental entity has insurance to pay for losses like those resulting from the death of Cody.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk