Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). In the case of Thomas v. Kinkead, 55 Ark. 502, Judge Mansfield made a thorough examination of the principles of law governing cases of this sort in an action wherein a constable was sued for damages for the unjustifiable shooting and killing by his deputy of a person charged with the commission of a misdemeanor to prevent his escape after being arrested. The court reversed a verdict for the defendant because of the charge of the trial court that the defendant had a right to shoot deceased if it was necessary to prevent his escape. It was said that the force which an officer may lawfully use to prevent the escape of one arrested for a misdemeanor is no greater than such as might have been rightfully employed to effect his arrest. The officer cannot in either case take the life of the accused or inflict great bodily harm except to save his own life or prevent a like injury to himself.
The learned justice concluded his review of the authorities and a statement of the rule of the common law as follows:
“We can see no principle of reason or justice on which such a distinction can rest, and we therefore hold that the force or violence which an officer may lawfully use to prevent the escape of a person arrested for a misdemeanor is no greater than such as might have been rightfully employed to effect his arrest. In making the arrest or preventing the escape, the officer may exert such physical force as is necessary on the one hand to effect the arrest by overcoming the resistance he encounters, or on t'he other to subdue the efforts of the prisoner to escape; but he cannot in either case take the life of the accused, or even inflict upon him a great bodily harm, except to save his own life or to prevent a like harm to himself. ’ ’ 'See also case note to 3 A. L. R. at p. 1173.
The general rule is that for all civil purposes the acts of a deputy sheriff or constable are those of -his principal. Hence a sheriff or constable is liable for the act, default, tort, or other misconduct done or committed by his deputy, colore officii. Moores v. Winter, 67 Ark. 189; Frizzell v. Duffer, 58 Ark. 612; 35 Cyc. 1618, and 24 R. C. L. p. 982, § 75.
It will be noted that this rule was recognized and followed in Thomas v. Kinkead, 55 Ark. 502, although the rule itself was mot announced or commented on.
Again in State v. Newton, 33 Ark. 276, the court held that the State Treasurer and his bondsmen are liable for the official conduct of his deputies.
Then too § 9152 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest provides that each sheriff may appoint one or more deputies, for whose official conduct he shall be responsible. Thus it will he seen that a sheriff is liable, both under the common law and under our statute, for an unlawful assault made by his deputy while in the discharge of his official duty. Under our statute, it is made a misdemeanor to drive any automobile over any of the streets of any city or town or any public highway in the State while in an intoxicated condition. General Acts of Arkansas 1923, p. 200.
Section 2904 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest provides that a peace officer may make arrests without a warrant where a public offense is committed in his presence.
In Coen v. Presby, 14 Gray (Mass.) 65, it was held that reasonable canse to believe a person to be intoxicated is sufficient to ■ excuse an arrest without a warrant. In discussing the principle in Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio St. 340, 1 N. E. 76, the court said that good faith, an honest belief, based upon reliable information, which proves to be true, is all the law requires. In that case the person was arrested for carrying concealed weapons. Thus it will be seen that a misdemeanor must have been actually committed to justify am arrest without a warrant, and the officer must determine at his peril whether an offense has been committed or not.
It was the theory of the appellant, George Edgin, that he was not drunk at the time he was arrested, and evidence was introduced by him to that effect. On the other hand, appellees testified that they had been informed that he was drunk and likely to hurt someone, and that they arrested him on this account. The deputy sheriff denied that he fired at Edgin, and says that the pistol shots were fired by him only to intimidate and cause George Edgin to surrender, who, he had been informed, was driving an automobile in a drunken condition on the public highway. The pistol shots were mot fired at George Edgin, and neither of them struck him or caused him any physical injury.
If the jury believed the testimony of the deputy sheriff (and by its verdict it has so found) that the shots fired by him were only to accomplish the arrest' of Geo. Edgin, it can not in law be considered an assault .and battery for which the officer can be punished. Mesmer v. Commonwealth, 26 Gratt. (Va.) p. 976.
The deputy sheriff], having been informed that George Edgin was driving an automobile in a drunken condition along the highway, had the right under the law to arrest him, if he was drunk when found by the deputy sheriff.
The jury was fully and fairly instructed in accordance with the principles of law above announced, and the respective theories of appellant, George Edgin, and appellees, were submitted to the jury in appropriate instructions. The jury having by its verdict found the facts in favor of appellee, appellant, George Edgin, is in no attitude to complain. It cannot be said that he is entitled to recover for the injury to his automobile as the result of the shots fired Iby the deputy sheriff. Although he might have believed that he was being illegally arrested, it was his duty to have submitted to the officers. Coats v. State, 101 Ark. 51.
George Edgin lived in Ozark, and knew that Talley was a deputy sheriff. It is true that he says that he did not hear Talley order him to stop; but here again the evidence is conflicting, and the jury under proper instructions found in favor of appellees on this point. According to the testimony of the deputy sheriff, Edgin must have known that he was being ordered by him to stop. Talley says that he called to him to stop several times, and that one of the persons in the car leaned over and whispered something to George Edgin. Other people further away from Talley than Edgin and his companions heard Talley call to them to stop. Hence the jury might have inferred that Edgin he'ard Talley tell him to stop, and that he drove on, knowing Talley to be an officer, for the purpose of escaping arrest.
The jury might also have found that George Edgin was drunk at the time. According to the testimony of Talley he did not shoot at Edgin, but only shot for the purpose of stopping his car, so that he might arrest him for being drunk in violation of law. Under these circumstances there would be no civil liability on the part o,f appellees for the injury done to the automobile of George Edgin.
Again it is insisted by counsel for appellant, George Edgin, that the judgment should be reversed because the court allowed Mrs. Harman, the wife of the sheriff, to state that she had received word at the jail that George Edgin was drunk and might kill some one; and that she communicated this statement to her husband and Talley.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). In the case of Thomas v. Kinkead, 55 Ark. 502, Judge Mansfield made a thorough examination of the principles of law governing cases of this sort in an action wherein a constable was sued for damages for the unjustifiable shooting and killing by his deputy of a person charged with the commission of a misdemeanor to prevent his escape after being arrested. The court reversed a verdict for the defendant because of the charge of the trial court that the defendant had a right to shoot deceased if it was necessary to prevent his escape. It was said that the force which an officer may lawfully use to prevent the escape of one arrested for a misdemeanor is no greater than such as might have been rightfully employed to effect his arrest. The officer cannot in either case take the life of the accused or inflict great bodily harm except to save his own life or prevent a like injury to himself.
The learned justice concluded his review of the authorities and a statement of the rule of the common law as follows:
“We can see no principle of reason or justice on which such a distinction can rest, and we therefore hold that the force or violence which an officer may lawfully use to prevent the escape of a person arrested for a misdemeanor is no greater than such as might have been rightfully employed to effect his arrest. In making the arrest or preventing the escape, the officer may exert such physical force as is necessary on the one hand to effect the arrest by overcoming the resistance he encounters, or on t'he other to subdue the efforts of the prisoner to escape; but he cannot in either case take the life of the accused, or even inflict upon him a great bodily harm, except to save his own life or to prevent a like harm to himself. ’ ’ 'See also case note to 3 A. L. R. at p. 1173.
The general rule is that for all civil purposes the acts of a deputy sheriff or constable are those of -his principal. Hence a sheriff or constable is liable for the act, default, tort, or other misconduct done or committed by his deputy, colore officii. Moores v. Winter, 67 Ark. 189; Frizzell v. Duffer, 58 Ark. 612; 35 Cyc. 1618, and 24 R. C. L. p. 982, § 75.
It will be noted that this rule was recognized and followed in Thomas v. Kinkead, 55 Ark. 502, although the rule itself was mot announced or commented on.
Again in State v. Newton, 33 Ark. 276, the court held that the State Treasurer and his bondsmen are liable for the official conduct of his deputies.
Then too § 9152 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest provides that each sheriff may appoint one or more deputies, for whose official conduct he shall be responsible. Thus it will he seen that a sheriff is liable, both under the common law and under our statute, for an unlawful assault made by his deputy while in the discharge of his official duty. Under our statute, it is made a misdemeanor to drive any automobile over any of the streets of any city or town or any public highway in the State while in an intoxicated condition. General Acts of Arkansas 1923, p. 200.
Section 2904 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest provides that a peace officer may make arrests without a warrant where a public offense is committed in his presence.
In Coen v. Presby, 14 Gray (Mass.) 65, it was held that reasonable canse to believe a person to be intoxicated is sufficient to ■ excuse an arrest without a warrant. In discussing the principle in Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio St. 340, 1 N. E. 76, the court said that good faith, an honest belief, based upon reliable information, which proves to be true, is all the law requires. In that case the person was arrested for carrying concealed weapons. Thus it will be seen that a misdemeanor must have been actually committed to justify am arrest without a warrant, and the officer must determine at his peril whether an offense has been committed or not.
It was the theory of the appellant, George Edgin, that he was not drunk at the time he was arrested, and evidence was introduced by him to that effect. On the other hand, appellees testified that they had been informed that he was drunk and likely to hurt someone, and that they arrested him on this account. The deputy sheriff denied that he fired at Edgin, and says that the pistol shots were fired by him only to intimidate and cause George Edgin to surrender, who, he had been informed, was driving an automobile in a drunken condition on the public highway. The pistol shots were mot fired at George Edgin, and neither of them struck him or caused him any physical injury.
If the jury believed the testimony of the deputy sheriff (and by its verdict it has so found) that the shots fired by him were only to accomplish the arrest' of Geo. Edgin, it can not in law be considered an assault .and battery for which the officer can be punished. Mesmer v. Commonwealth, 26 Gratt. (Va.) p. 976.
The deputy sheriff], having been informed that George Edgin was driving an automobile in a drunken condition along the highway, had the right under the law to arrest him, if he was drunk when found by the deputy sheriff.
The jury was fully and fairly instructed in accordance with the principles of law above announced, and the respective theories of appellant, George Edgin, and appellees, were submitted to the jury in appropriate instructions. The jury having by its verdict found the facts in favor of appellee, appellant, George Edgin, is in no attitude to complain. It cannot be said that he is entitled to recover for the injury to his automobile as the result of the shots fired Iby the deputy sheriff. Although he might have believed that he was being illegally arrested, it was his duty to have submitted to the officers. Coats v. State, 101 Ark. 51.
George Edgin lived in Ozark, and knew that Talley was a deputy sheriff. It is true that he says that he did not hear Talley order him to stop; but here again the evidence is conflicting, and the jury under proper instructions found in favor of appellees on this point. According to the testimony of the deputy sheriff, Edgin must have known that he was being ordered by him to stop. Talley says that he called to him to stop several times, and that one of the persons in the car leaned over and whispered something to George Edgin. Other people further away from Talley than Edgin and his companions heard Talley call to them to stop. Hence the jury might have inferred that Edgin he'ard Talley tell him to stop, and that he drove on, knowing Talley to be an officer, for the purpose of escaping arrest.
The jury might also have found that George Edgin was drunk at the time. According to the testimony of Talley he did not shoot at Edgin, but only shot for the purpose of stopping his car, so that he might arrest him for being drunk in violation of law. Under these circumstances there would be no civil liability on the part o,f appellees for the injury done to the automobile of George Edgin.
Again it is insisted by counsel for appellant, George Edgin, that the judgment should be reversed because the court allowed Mrs. Harman, the wife of the sheriff, to state that she had received word at the jail that George Edgin was drunk and might kill some one; and that she communicated this statement to her husband and Talley.
According to the testimony of both Harman and Talley; they intended to arrest George Edgin because of receiving this information. The important fact was that they had received the , information from an authentic source, and the fact that the wife of one of the appellees was the source of information cuts no figure in the case at all. The case stands in no different attitude than it would if Harmon and Talley had stated that they had received information from a reliable source that George Edgin was driving an automobile along the public highway in a drunken condition. As we have already seen, under our statute it is the duty of peace officers who shall see or have knowledge of any person being drunk upon any public highway or street in this State to arrest such person. So, if the deputy sheriff had received knowledge from any authentic source that George Edgin was drunk upon the highway or streets of the city, it would be Ms duty under the statute to arrest Edgin when found, if Edgin was still drunk, since 'drunkenness is a continuing offense and would be committed in the presence of the officer under such circumstances. Therefore, we hold that this assignment of error was not well taken.
The result of our views is that no prejudicial error was committed by the court in the trial of the case of George Edgin, and the judgment in his case must therefore be affirmed.
The case of G'oldia Floyd however stands on a different footing. The evidence discloses that one of the pistol shots went through her hair and burned it. The bullet then passed through the wind shield of the automobile, breaking it, and thereby causing the giass to violently strike her leg and cut it. She was compelled to remain in bed for two weeks as the result of her injuries, and it was a month before she had sufficiently recovered from her injuries to attend school.
The undisputed evidence shows that she received severe physical injuries as a result of a pistol shot at the hands of Talley, and, under the principles of law above announced, Ms firing the pistol under the circumstances and thereby injuring Goldia Floyd in her person was a reckless and’ careless act which rendered him and his principal civilly liable in damages.
The duty of Talley to arrest George Edgin for driving an automobile along the streets while drunk, which was a misdemeanor, did not justify the use of. firearms, and firing !lfis pistol under the circumstances as shown by his own testimony rendered him liable for the physical injury to Goldia Floyd. While Talley had th'e right to carry loaded firearms in the discharge of his official duties, he had no right to use them , in a negligent and careless maimer, and he is liable for the unjustifiable discharge of his pistol to check the flight of George Edgin, who had only committed a misdemeanor. The undisputed evidence shows that Edgin was at most only attempting to escape, and Talley was not justified in shooting at him, even as a ruse to prevent his further flight.
It follows that the judgment against Goldia Floyd will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.
Wood, J., dissents on the ground that in his opinion the judgment should be affirmed as against Goldia Floyd also..