Baggett v. National Bank & Trust Co.
330 S.E.2d 108, 174 Ga. App. 346, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1811 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is not liable for false imprisonment or negligence when they provide accurate information to law enforcement in good faith about a perceived crime, without requesting an arrest, and a law enforcement officer makes an independent decision to detain an individual.
Facts:
- Richard Baggett entered a branch of The National Bank and Trust Company to deposit his paycheck.
- Baggett took a deposit slip from a customer supply area, which, unbeknownst to him, had the words 'This is a stek [sic] up' written on the back by an unknown person.
- He filled out the slip and handed it to a teller along with his paycheck and driver's license.
- The teller saw the note, informed the acting branch manager to call the police, and the manager activated the bank's silent alarm.
- The teller completed Baggett's transaction normally, after which Baggett left the bank.
- After police arrived, bank personnel gave them an accurate report of the events, including the facts that Baggett was a known customer, had not appeared nervous, and had not taken anything that did not belong to him.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Baggett filed a lawsuit against The National Bank and Trust Company in a trial court, alleging false imprisonment and negligence.
- The bank moved for summary judgment on both counts.
- The trial court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment on the false imprisonment count.
- The trial court denied the bank's motion for summary judgment on the negligence count.
- Baggett, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The bank, as cross-appellant, appealed the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim to the intermediate court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party instigate a false imprisonment when they provide an accurate and good faith report of a perceived crime to police, but do not request an arrest, and the police make an independent decision to detain someone?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, Judge
No. A party is not liable for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution where they merely relay accurate facts to a law enforcement official who then makes an independent decision to arrest. The court reasoned that liability only attaches when a party directly or indirectly urges an official to act, their persuasion is the determining factor, or they provide information known to be false. Here, the evidence undisputedly shows the bank employees provided an accurate, good faith account to the police and never requested Baggett's arrest; the decision was made solely by the police. The negligence claim also fails because public policy protects good faith reports of perceived criminal activity to avoid a 'chilling effect' on citizen cooperation with law enforcement.
Concurring - Banke, Chief Judge
No. While concurring in the judgment that the bank is not liable, this opinion disagrees with the majority's reasoning regarding the negligence claim. The concurrence argues that Georgia law, per the Supreme Court's decision in Stewart v. Williams, does not recognize a tort of 'negligent false imprisonment' without proof of damages beyond the bare interest in freedom from confinement. The opinion criticizes the majority for reaffirming the precedent in Oden & Sims Used Cars v. Thurman, viewing it as logically inconsistent to do so while simultaneously granting summary judgment to the bank on the negligence claim in this case.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong public policy of protecting citizens and businesses who report suspected criminal activity to law enforcement. It solidifies the legal distinction between merely providing information, which is shielded from liability, and actively instigating a prosecution, which is not. By immunizing 'honest mistakes' made in good faith, the court aims to encourage citizen cooperation with police. The special concurrence, however, highlights an unresolved tension in Georgia tort law regarding the viability of a negligence claim that results in confinement, suggesting this area of law may require further clarification.
