ILNews

Majority upholds false statement is protected

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A split Indiana Supreme Court Tuesday upheld a trial court's ruling that a Papa John's employee's false statement to police that a customer had pulled out a gun is protected by qualified privilege. The dissenting judges believed because the employee first made the false statement to a passerby and then police, he knowingly reported false information so his statement shouldn't be protected.

At issue in Thomas Williams and Sanford Kelsey v. Kelly Eugene Tharp and Papa John's U.S.A. Inc., No. 29S02-0901-CV-40, is whether Kelly Tharp's false statement to police that he saw Sanford Kelsey pull out a gun while in the pizza place should be protected by qualified privilege. Tharp told a passerby outside the store that he had seen Kelsey pull out the gun; he also told another employee, who didn't see a gun. The passerby called police, who pulled the two men over, detained them for an hour, and then determined there was no gun. Tharp gave his father's name and information to police - which he had used to get his job at Papa John's - and then left because he knew he had outstanding warrants.

Williams and Kelsey sued seeking compensatory and punitive damages, alleging defamation per se, false imprisonment, emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on each count.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shephard, and Justices Brent Dickson and Frank Sullivan affirmed Tharp's statement to police was protected by qualified privilege. The high court determined that qualified privilege in Indiana requires more than reckless disregard of the truth to support a claim of defamation or false imprisonment based on an inaccurate report to police of possible criminal activity. The reckless standard would subject a person to liability for reporting criminal conduct not only when the speaker actually knew the statement was false but also if it could be shown they should have known the statement wasn't true, wrote Justice Dickson.

Williams and Kelsey argued there is a genuine issue of whether Tharp made his statement "without belief or grounds for belief in its truth." But the majority determined the plaintiffs hadn't designated sufficient evidence to give rise to a genuine issue about whether Tharp made his statement knowing it was false or that he was so obviously mistaken as to support a reasonable inference that he lied, the justice continued.

Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker dissented in separate opinions, agreeing with the Court of Appeals' decision. In their dissents, the justices emphasized that Tharp originally gave his false statement to a passerby, which isn't protected by qualified privilege, and then gave the same statement to police. They also noted Tharp didn't call police, misidentified himself to police, and later fled.

The majority also rejected the plaintiffs' application for leave to file a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief of judgment because Tharp later pleaded guilty to false reporting. The majority ruled they could file a T.R. 60(B)(8) motion. Justice Rucker, who agreed with Justice Boehm's dissent, believed Tharp's guilty plea was important to the case and the high court shouldn't turn a "blind eye" to the evidence just because the plaintiffs waited to file their motion until after the oral arguments. The justice believed the plea raises a genuine issue of material fact as it could be considered newly discovered evidence, so the high court should at least reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT