ILNews

Court orders suit against Papa John's to trial

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a national pizza chain and its employee, finding there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the employee's statement to police was protected by privilege. In Thomas Williams and Sanford Kelsey v. Kelly Eugene Tharp and Papa John's U.S.A. Inc., No. 29A02-0707-CV-625, Thomas Williams and Sanford Kelsey appealed the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Papa John's on their claims for defamation, false imprisonment, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Williams and Kelsey picked up a pizza at a Westfield Papa John's. On their way out, an employee, Kelly Tharp, who was using his father's name and information to get the job at Papa John's because he had a criminal past, told a passerby and other employees that Kelsey had a gun. Other employees didn't report seeing a gun. The police were called and Tharp gave the officer the license plate number and description of Kelsey's car. As the two were returning home with their pizza, police surrounded the car and ordered them out at gunpoint. The two were handcuffed and detained for more than an hour while police searched and discovered they didn't have a gun. At the store, a police officer stood behind the counter where Tharp would have been and deduced that he wouldn't have been able to see Kelsey pull a gun from his waist because of the location of the counter. The Court of Appeals found there were many issues of fact in this case and granting Papa John's and Tharp summary judgment on the claims was an error. "The allegation Tharp reported Williams and Kelsey 'pulled a gun' presented factual issues for trial because, as the trial court correctly noted, it imputed criminal activity to Williams and Kelsey," wrote Judge Melissa May. The trial court erred in concluding Tharp's statement was privileged, even if it was defamatory, because there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether privilege applied to his statement. Williams and Kelsey offered ample evidence to give rise to that issue of fact whether Tharp acted with reckless disregard for the truth, she wrote. As a result of the question of whether Tharp's statement was protected by privilege, summary judgment on the false imprisonment count was improperly premised on the qualified privilege. Because of other issues of fact on the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, and punitive damages claims, granting summary judgment in favor of the pizza chain and Tharp was an error. The appellate court remanded the case for trial. 

"My clients are very happy about it and looking forward to getting their day in court," said Arend J. Abel of Indianapolis-based law firm Cohen & Malad, who represented Williams and Kelsey.

Abel noted that Tharp recently pleaded guilty to false informing, acknowledging he deliberately made a false report.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT