Taylor v. Waldo
309 Ga. App. 108
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Taylor sued Villa Rica police officers for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his June 10, 2007 arrest.
- Officers Waldo and Hammett arrested Taylor without a warrant during an investigation of a hit-and-run that allegedly occurred four days earlier.
- Arrest occurred outside the officers’ city jurisdiction but in their presence; Taylor contends the arrest was unlawful and wrongful.
- Taylor alleged injuries including bruises, abrasions, chest pain, and emotional distress; he sought damages from the officers and the city.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the officers on all claims, citing official immunity; Taylor appealed.
- On appeal, the court reviews summary judgment de novo and determines whether immunity defeats the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrest outside jurisdiction and immunity | Taylor argues ultra vires arrest negates immunity. | Waldo/Hammett argue discretionary arrest in presence preserves immunity. | Immunity applies; arrest outside jurisdiction for offenses in presence lawful. |
| Official immunity governing all claims | Taylor asserts immunity does not bar false imprisonment, assault, IIED. | Officers contends discretionary acts within authority are immune absent malice. | Official immunity bars the claims absent malice or intent to injure. |
| Need for actual malice to defeat immunity | Taylor claims evidence shows malice in the arrest and handling. | Defendants contend no evidence of malice suffices for immunity. | No evidence of actual malice; immunity remains intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. State, 206 Ga.App. 513 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (arrest without warrant allowed when offense observed in presence)
- Delong v. Domenici, 271 Ga.App. 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (arrest discretionality outside jurisdiction preserved immunity)
- Selvy v. Morrison, 292 Ga.App. 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (discretionary acts immune absent malice or intent to injure)
- Tittle v. Corso, 256 Ga.App. 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (right to use force in making an arrest; lack of malice affects immunity)
- Gardner v. Rogers, 224 Ga.App. 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (excessive force must show intent to injure to defeat immunity)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (Ga. 2001) (official immunity-governing discretionary acts without malice)
- Adams v. Hazelwood, 271 Ga. 414 (Ga. 1999) (actual malice required to overcome official immunity)