Perkins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 573
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Perkins, a Holly Springs police officer, went to Wal-Mart off duty on December 18, 2005 with his son and purchased items including a printer cartridge valued at about $20; the cartridge was ultimately voided from the total, making the bill about $5, and Perkins paid with a $100 bill without noticing the voided cartridge.
- Wal-Mart loss-prevention identified an alleged under-ringing scheme; Jackson admitted involvement and named Perkins as someone who knew about the cartridge and helped cause the undercharge; surveillance video supported identification of Perkins.
- Wal-Mart investigators contacted Detective Elijah Wilson, who interviewed Jackson; Jackson stated Perkins knew he did not pay for the cartridge, which led Ferguson to file a petit-larceny affidavit against Perkins.
- Chief Selman relieved Perkins of supervisory duties on December 27, 2005; prior feud over a missing evidence locker was alleged, with Perkins and Wilson involved in disputes about inventory and handling.
- Perkins was tried January 23, 2006; Jackson recanted and testified there was no proof Perkins knew he didn’t pay; Perkins was acquitted for lack of evidence.
- In May 2006, Perkins was suspended for two weeks over an unrelated evidence/driver-license incident; he was later not demoted but reassigned, and a six-month probation was imposed for untruthfulness and mishandling property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution elements | Perkins argues Wal-Mart acted with malice and without probable cause. | Wal-Mart contends it had probable cause and no malice; actions were based on Jackson's statements and video. | Wal-Mart summary judgment affirmed; no malice or lack of probable cause shown. |
| Civil conspiracy between Wal-Mart and Wilson | Perkins contends a conspiratorial agreement existed to prosecute him maliciously. | No unlawful agreement; actions taken in good faith with probable cause. | Summary judgment affirmed for Wal-Mart and Wilson. |
| Malicious interference with employment | Detective Wilson interfered with Perkins's employment due to feud and actions following the case. | No evidence Wilson caused job loss or self-serving interference; actions were not purposeful or unlawful. | Summary judgment affirmed for Wilson; no tortious interference shown. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress by Wilson | Wilson's conduct could be outrageous and intended to harm Perkins. | No extreme outrageous conduct proven; evidence suggested negligence and disputed tape-recording control. | Judgment reversed and remanded as to Wilson; genuine issue of material fact exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Hill City Oil Co., Inc., 2 So.3d 661 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (elements of malicious prosecution; malice and probable cause required)
- McClinton v. Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., 792 So.2d 968 (Miss.2001) (malice in commencing criminal proceedings; required elements)
- Benjamin v. Hooper Elec. Supply Co., 568 So.2d 1182 (Miss.1990) (probable cause standard in malice cases)
- Richard v. Supervalu, Inc., 974 So.2d 944 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (probable cause governs malice analysis; reasonable belief of success suffices)
- Zumwalt v. Jones County Bd. of Supervisors, 19 So.3d 672 (Miss.2010) (malice exception to MTCA for intentional torts by government employees)
- Gorman-Rupp Co. v. Hall, 908 So.2d 749 (Miss.2005) (summary-judgment standard; material facts must be viewed in plaintiff's favor)
- Speed v. Scott, 787 So.2d 626 (Miss.2001) (outrageousness standard for intentional-infliction claim)