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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT