PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. McCOY 244 S.W.3d 44 (2008) CASE BRIEF

PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. McCOY

244 S.W.3d 44 (2008)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Papa (Ds) appealed a reversal of a summary judgment over McCoy's (P) suit for malicious prosecution and defamation.

FACTS: McCoy (P) ordered pizzas from RWT (D), a Papa John's franchisee. Burke delivered the two pizzas and then stopped at P's business for payment. According to P, after P paid him, Burke remained at P's business in P's office and inquired about employment. P was preoccupied with other matters, and it became obvious to him that Burke had no intention of leaving. So P placed a hunting video in his VCR and told Burke to watch it. P had a beer can on his desk while Burke was in his office and a rifle in one corner of his office. The tape lasted about fifteen minutes. When the tape concluded, Burke left. After Burke left, P received a call from D inquiring as to Burke's whereabouts. Burke says P asked him to sit and talk awhile. P expressed to Burke that he had been having suicidal and homicidal thoughts and had visions. Burke alleges that P was drinking liquor and chasing it with beer. And at one point when Burke attempted to leave, P stood up, picked up a rifle, showed it to Burke, and then laid it on his desk. P took several phone calls. After hanging up from one of the phone calls, P informed Burke that that call had been from D; and they were inquiring as to Burke's whereabouts. P asked Burke to watch a videotape of one of his deer hunting trips with him. When the tape ended, Burke slipped out. He returned to Papa John's about an hour and a half to two hours after he first left the store to deliver the pizzas. Burke told the police what had occurred and two officers responded. The officers obtained a warrant and arrested P at his home on the charge of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. The local newspaper ran a story about the arrest a few days later. The county attorney, dismissed the charge against P. The county attorney agreed to the dismissal only with the stipulation of probable cause. The district court dismissed the charges against P with prejudice and with no stipulations. The store where Burke worked was a D franchise that was owned and operated by RWT. P sued D and Burke for (1) wrongful arrest, (2) malicious prosecution, and (3) defamation. D represented that it was the franchisor and that RWT was the owner/operator. P filed against RW. The trial court dismissed the false arrest claims against all three defendants because there was no question that the officers arrested P according to a valid warrant. RTW and D filed a joint motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's conclusion that Burke was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The trial court granted summary judgment to RWT and D on all of P's claims against these two defendants. But the trial court did not dismiss the proceedings against Burke. P appealed, and RWT cross-appealed on the scope of employment question. On the scope of employment cross-appeal, the Court of Appeals held that it could not be presumed that Burke intentionally lied and that a jury should decide whether he acted within the scope of his employment. It reversed the summary judgment in favor of D on the claims of defamation (which did not have a statute of limitations issue as to D) and malicious prosecution. Ds appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner