Georgia Trial Lawyer Blog

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently held that a person who was wrongfully arrested for not paying a restaurant bill could sue the restaurant and its manager for false imprisonment.

In Ferrell v. Mikula, 18 year-old Racquel Ferrell and 13 year-old Kristie Ferrell were arrested for not paying their bill after dining at Ruby Tuesdays. After eating, the girls left in their vehicle and were followed by an off duty police officer working as a security guard at Ruby Tuesday. Officers in marked police cars were notified and pulled the girls over. The girls were asked if they had any drugs or weapons in the vehicle and were then placed in the back of separate patrol cars in handcuffs. The arresting officers conferred with the security guard at which time they realized they had made a mistake. The security guard explained that he had been sent after Racquel’s vehicle by the restaurant’s manager, Christian Mikula, for not paying their bill, but Racquel and Kristie Ferrell did not match the description of the two people who had not paid their bill. After obtaining Racquel’s drivers license and information, the girls were set free.

Mikula had been tending to a man and woman around the age of 30 who were unhappy with their meals. Mikula briefly left their table at which time he was informed that the two had left without paying. He then saw a car leaving the parking lot and informed the security guard that he thought the occupants of the vehicle had not paid. The security guard followed the vehicle which turned out to be Racquel Ferrell’s. At the scene of the arrests, the security guard called the manager to get a description of the people who had not paid, and it was at that point that the mistake was realized. Racquel Farrell and Kristie Ferrell’s parents sued Ruby Tuesday and Mikula for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and training. The trial court granted Ruby Tuesday’s motion for summary judgment on the false imprisonment and negligent hiring claims and both defendants’ claims for emotional distress.

Ruby Tuesday argued that the claim of false imprisonment should be dismissed, since there was probable cause to arrest and no malice existed. The Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed by ruling that malice is not an element of false imprisonment. Furthermore, probable cause is not a defense to false imprisonment unlike the tort of malicious arrest which involves an arrest based on a warrant. Here, the alleged crime took place outside the officer’s immediate knowledge and without a warrant. This means there must be some exigent circumstance as proscribed by Georgia law for the arrest to be legal and for summary judgment to be proper. As there were no exigent circumstances, the Ferrells had established that the detention was unlawful.

The court then moved to the question of whether Mikula had caused the unlawful detention of the Ferrells. Generally, a defendant does not have to explicitly request an arrest to be liable of false imprisonment but only has to act in a way which procures an arrest. Mikula told the security guard that the people in the vehicle leaving the parking lot had not paid their bill although he did not know who was actually in the vehicle. He also knew that the security guard would detain the vehicle’s occupants but did nothing to stop that from happening. Thus, summary judgment for the defendants on the false imprisonment claim would be improper.

While the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the claims for negligent hiring and emotional distress, the ruling reaffirms the principle that a person who is wrongfully arrested may have a claim of false imprisonment against those who assisted officers in making the arrest.

Our personal injury lawyers have also been involved in several false arrest and malicious prosecution cases in Georgia. While these cases can be difficult to win, this decision may help us hold businesses responsible when they jump to conclusions about someone's guilt before they check all the facts.

A Georgia personal injury attorney recently won a $1.25 million verdict in a nursing home neglect case in Dekalb County, Georgia. The allegations involved improper care and treatment by the nursing home, including the failure to properly monitor the patient to avoid the occurrence of painful bed sores.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Nursing home neglect and abuse cases can be tragic. We generally expect these facilities to operate within the standard of care and to honestly care about the patients in their facilities. Unfortunately, as this case shows, that doesn't always happen.

Perhaps the size of this verdict will send a message to nursing homes to be more vigilant in patient care.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta recently held that a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for using significant force after making an arrest in which there was no danger.

In Galvez v. Bruce, the Eleventh Circuit held that a sheriff’s deputy who allegedly used excessive force after making an arrest was not entitled to qualified immunity. The decision stems from an incident that occurred at medical doctor Adolfo Galvez’s walk-in clinic in Florida. A teenage girl had pulled into Galvez’s parking lot with an overheated car and asked to use a water spigot to fill the vehicle’s radiator. In exchange, Galvez requested the girl’s driver’s license to copy in case the car was not removed. The girl gave Galvez the license, but a dispute then broke out in which Galvez refused to return the license.

Sheriff’s deputy Henry Bruce was dispatched to the scene. Bruce demanded Galvez to hand over the license, but Galvez refused. Bruce then grabbed Galvez’s right hand in an attempt to arrest him. Galvez resisted Bruce’s advancement while trying to retrieve the license from above a printer. Bruce pushed Galvez away from the printer and grabbed the license along with confidential patient information. Galvez then grabbed the license and confidential papers and placed the license in his pants pocket. At this point, Galvez was placed under arrest.

Galvez testified that after he was arrested Bruce dragged him outside. Bruce then slammed Galvez’s chest into the edge of the clinic’s car port several times. Galvez claims that his body was pinned between Bruce and the concrete wall while the slamming occurred. Finally, Bruce retrieved the license from Galvez’s pocket. Galvez was charged with petit theft and resisting arrest which were both later dropped. Galvez sustained two broken ribs and a leaking aneurysm from the incident. As a result, Galvez sued Bruce for violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free of excessive force by state police officers.

The trial court granted Bruce’s motion for summary judgment by determining that he was entitled to qualified immunity. For qualified immunity to exist, the officer must have been acting within his discretionary authority, and his actions must not have violated a statutory or constitutional right. Finally, if there was a violation of a right, qualified immunity exists if that right was not clearly established by the law. The trial court found that the law did not provide Bruce with clear notice that his conduct was unlawful, and thus, he was entitled to qualified immunity.

However, the appeals court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning. First, the appeals court determined that that a jury could find that Galvez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during arrest was violated, since the use of force could be found to be disproportionate to the amount necessary for arrest. The court reasoned that the low severity of the crimes, the lack of danger to the officer, and the low risk of flight all led to this conclusion. Second, the court found that two prior cases should have put Bruce on notice that his actions were not legal. Prior cases demonstrate that qualified immunity does not exist for officers who use significant force after an arrest has taken place in which the arrestee has been secured and poses no danger to the officer. As a result, the trial court’s summary judgment was thrown out.

Our constitutional rights attorneys have assisted people in several false arrest and excessive force cases involving law enforcement officers. Although these cases can be incredibly difficult to win, we have been successful when we can show that the officer's actions violated clearly established law. This case will likely help us protect the constitutional rights of citizens when police officers get too far out of line.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued new guidelines relating to the safety of public pools and spas. These guidelines are an attempt to address the well-known problem of children being entrapped in drains and suffering serious injuries or death.

The guideline can be found on the CPSC's website.

Public pools can be a great summertime diversion for kids and families. That's why it is so important to insure that these facilities are safe and in compliance with federal guidelines. Now that these guidelines are in place, pool operators and owners will likely be held liable if a child becomes entrapped in an unsafe drain at their pool.

A Winder, Georgia man will collect $720,000 (and his lawyer will recover at least $318,000 in legal fees) as part of a settlement in a whistleblower case the man brought against his former employer, a Department of Defense contractor. The contractor will also have to pay the U.S. Army $4 million as a result of false and fraudulent time claims for work the contractor did for the Army in Iraq.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

This case is an example of how effective whistleblower claims can be. There are very powerful laws on the books to help people who want to report fraudulent billings by state and federal government contractors. In many cases, the person reporting the fraud will be entitled to recover a portion of the amount collected by the government and will be protected against retaliation by the contractor.

Our fraud attorneys also assist whistleblowers and other people who want to report fraud against the government. If you believe you have direct knowledge of fraudulent billing practices, or other fraud committed by a government contractor or medicaid/medicare provider, you should call a Georgia law firm experienced in whistleblower claims to discuss a possible qui tam lawsuit or complaint. It could be a very worthwhile phone call.