Honeycutt v. Town of Boyce

• Decision Date: 13 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 57816,57816
• Citation: 341 So.2d 327
• Parties: Mrs. Yvonne HONEYCUTT et al. v. TOWN OF BOYCE, Louisiana, et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 327

341 So.2d 327

Mrs. Yvonne HONEYCUTT et al. v. TOWN OF BOYCE, Louisiana, et al.

No. 57816.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1977.

D. Mark Bienvenu, Voorhies & Labbe, Lafayette, for plaintiffs-applicants.

Downs & Downs, James C. Downs, Alexandria, for defendant-respondent.

SUMMERS, Justice.

On January 15, 1973 Yvonne Honeycutt, widow of Merlin Honeycutt, deceased, and decedent's two daughters, Lonnie Honeycutt and Diana Honeycutt Daley, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. They named as defendants Marshall T. Cappel, Sheriff of Rapides Parish; Jim Hillman, as Marshal of the town of Boyce and also in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Rapides Parish; John Johnson, Mayor of the town of Boyce; and Denver Feazell, Grundy E. James Haywood B. Joiner, Sr., John L. Nes-Smith and Bennett N. Sewell, as Aldermen of the town of Boyce.

The suit was an action at law to redress the deprivation of civil rights under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Louisiana secured to plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ¹

The action is based upon allegations that on January 8, 1973 Jim Hillman, while wearing the uniform of a Rapides Parish deputy sheriff, shot Merlin Honeycutt in front of the post office in Boyce, Louisiana, without provocation. At the time Hillman, acting as deputy sheriff, was serving an arrest warrant on Honeycutt. As a result of the shooting, Honeycutt died. Cappel, the Sheriff of Rapides Parish, knew before that time, it is alleged, that Hillman had harassed and threatened the life of Honeycutt and his family. It is also alleged that the mayor and aldermen of the town of Boyce were aware of Hillman's misconduct but they failed to take action to relieve Hillman of his duties. The sheriff, Mayor and aldermen were, therefore, negligent in retaining Hillman on their payroll, according to the petition. For these violations of decedent's civil rights, plaintiffs claimed $1,587,050 in damages against defendants and their respective insurers.

On motion by the town of Boyce, the mayor and the aldermen, a summary judgment was rendered on June 12, 1973, dismissing plaintiffs' suit against these movers for the reason that the civil rights action did not apply to municipalities. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). The judgment stipulated:

'Plaintiffs' rights as to all other defendants and plaintiffs' rights to proceed in the Courts of the State of Louisiana against these defendants are hereby reserved.' A final judgment was entered on August 6, 1973 dismissing the case without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown in 60 days, to reopen the action if settlement was not consummated.

The last relevant entry, dated August 6, 1973, is an order stating 'Let the above (captioned) case remain open as to Jim Hillman, individually.'

Thereafter, on August 17, 1973 plaintiffs, in consideration of $40,750, executed a compromise captioned 'Full Release Of All Claims.' The sheriff, his insurer, his agents, servants, successors, assigns, the Louisiana Sheriff's Association and their insurer, were discharged from all claims arising out of the shooting of Honeycutt by Hillman on January 8, 1973, as set forth in the suit filed in the Federal District Court. Also included in the discharge were Hillman's acts which deprived Honeycutt or plaintiffs of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or claims plaintiffs may have under the laws of the State of Louisiana by reason of acts committed by Hillman.

Further, plaintiffs released Hillman 'in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff in and for the Parish of Rapides', his insurers, the Louisiana Sheriff's Association, Cappel, individually and as Sheriff; and all of his deputies or employees on account of Hillman's acts. The settlement and compromise authorized the dismissal of the federal suit.

An addendum to the Release executed by Yvonne Honeycutt set forth: 'As to Jim Hillman, it is intended and agreed as a part and consideration of this original release, that this release is to be full co-extensive with all coverages available to the said James Hillman under all of the terms and conditions of any policies in effect with Gray and Company, Inc., and Interstate Insurance Group, being the said policies involved in the suit described in paragraph 1 of the original release (of the federal suit).'

Several days later, on August 23, 1973, these same plaintiffs instituted suit in the State Court in the Ninth Judicial District, Parish of Rapides, claiming $727,050 in damages against the town of Boyce and against Hillman individually and in solido for the wrongful death of Honeycutt.

This state suit in tort is based upon the allegation that Hillman shot Honeycutt on January 8, 1973 without provocation while acting in his capacity as marshal of the town of Boyce and while serving a warrant of arrest on the decedent. As an employee of the town, it is alleged, the town is liable for the action of Hillman under the theory of respondeat superior. Acts of negligence on the part of Hillman and the town are alleged.

In a pretrial conference order the primary liability issue was stated to be: 'What, if any, is the responsibility of the Town of Boyce and Jim Hillman and if either are responsible, what amount should plaintiffs recover.'

In deciding an exception of no cause of action filed by the town of Boyce, the trial court found that Hillman, as marshal, was an elected official of the town. As such, he was carrying out functions authorized by state statute, and there were no allegations to support a conclusion that the town of Boyce could have controlled the conduct of the marshal. On this basis, the trial judge held there were no facts whereby the town could be held responsible for the general law enforcement duties of the marshal.

On appeal to the Third Circuit the judgment was affirmed. There, however, the Court found that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of no cause of action, stating that Hillman was, according to the pleadings, performing a duty incident to his employment when he shot Honeycutt. With this result we agree. On the other issue the court entertained substantial doubt whether plaintiffs had reserved their right to proceed against the town of Boyce. Nevertheless, the question, as understood by the Court of Appeal, was whether plaintiff could release Hillman in the capacity of deputy sheriff, and still reserve the right to proceed against him individually and in the capacity of city marshal.

In reaching its conclusion the court said, 'Despite the apparent intention of plaintiffs to grant a limited release, they inadvertently released all claims arising from the death of Merlin Honeycutt.' The court said that plaintiffs could not, as a matter of law, release rights against Hillman in one capacity and reserve rights against him in other capacities, and the release of Hillman in the instrument of ...