Harris v. Beth
518 S.W.3d 126
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jason Harris, a Little Rock Police K-9 officer, kept his assigned dog (Ammo) at his private Saline County residence and was required to be on call 24/7 to care for and deploy the dog.
- Neighbor Norman Beth was bitten by Ammo after the dog escaped from Harris’s yard while Harris was not at home.
- Beth sued Harris individually for negligence and strict liability for keeping a dangerous animal, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Harris moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301 (municipal immunity for employees acting in official capacity) and relied on precedent (Autry v. Lawrence).
- Beth countered that Harris was not acting in his official capacity at the time of the bite and that Harris had homeowner’s liability insurance; Harris did not prove absence of municipal liability coverage.
- The circuit court denied summary judgment, concluding the statute should not be read to grant blanket immunity for any off-duty conduct; Harris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 21-9-301 immunity covers Harris’s conduct of keeping Ammo at home | Harris: his care and securing of Ammo was an official duty; thus municipal immunity applies | Beth: Harris’s negligence occurred off-duty at his home; not within course and scope of employment | Court: Denied summary judgment — Harris failed to establish entitlement to immunity |
| Whether defendant must prove lack of municipal liability insurance to obtain immunity | Beth: municipal immunity limited by available liability coverage; homeowner policy may apply | Harris: immunity should be measured against city’s insurance; he did not need to show absence of municipal coverage | Court: Harris failed to plead/prove absence of municipal liability coverage, which is required to obtain immunity |
| Whether factual issues (e.g., whether Harris secured Ammo) precluded summary judgment | Beth: factual disputes exist about whether Ammo was secured | Harris: argued duties made his actions official, implying no material factual dispute | Court: viewed facts in light most favorable to Beth; denial affirmed because Harris did not establish prima facie entitlement |
| Whether out-of-state authority (Eshleman) mandates a different result | Harris: cited Georgia case holding a dog-handler was presumptively immune while caring for the dog at home | Beth: state law and insurance requirement control; Georgia precedent not controlling | Court: declined to adopt that result because Harris did not meet Arkansas statutory proof requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Autry v. Lawrence, 696 S.W.2d 315 (Ark. 1985) (municipal-employee immunity applied when negligence occurred in performance of official duties)
- Vent v. Johnson, 303 S.W.3d 46 (Ark. 2009) (defendant seeking § 21-9-301 immunity must plead and prove absence of liability coverage)
- Sykes v. Williams, 283 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. 2008) (summary-judgment standards and burden on movant)
- Eshleman v. Key, 774 S.E.2d 96 (Ga. 2015) (Georgia Supreme Court held a police dog handler was presumptively entitled to official immunity for care of her dog at home)