Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest may be assessed against a municipal employee individually liable for negligence, even when the employee acted within the scope of official duties. The court further held that a complaint need not expressly designate the employee as sued in an individual capacity unless the defendant properly contests capacity under the applicable pleading rule. The court affirmed the Superior Court judgment awarding prejudgment interest against the police officer.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prejudgment interest may be assessed against a municipal employee personally liable for negligence committed while performing official duties, even though the municipality itself is protected from prejudgment interest.
- Whether a plaintiff must specifically plead that a municipal employee is sued in an individual capacity before prejudgment interest may be added to a judgment against the employee.
Holdings
- A municipal employee who is individually liable in tort is not entitled to share the municipality's immunity from prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest may be added to a judgment against the employee even when the employee acted within the scope of official duties.
- A complaint need not specifically state that a municipal employee is sued in an individual capacity before prejudgment interest may be assessed. A defendant who wishes to contest capacity must raise the issue by affirmative defense under Rule 9(a), and the complaint here did not clearly designate an official-capacity suit.
- Neither the permissive municipal indemnification statute nor a collective-bargaining agreement requiring indemnification transforms an individual employee's liability into municipal liability or extends the municipality's immunity from prejudgment interest.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.” (1273)
“the exemption from prejudgment interest for municipalities that we recognized in Andrade and that derived from the residual sovereign immunity that survived the limited waiver of such immunity established by the Governmental Tort Liability Act * * * does not extend to government employees who are liable in tort.” (1276)
“We therefore hold that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to specifically state in his complaint that the defendant was being sued in an individual capacity in order to assess prejudgment interest on the judgment against him.” (1279)
Factual background
On June 11, 1997, Michael Andrade was injured in an automobile accident involving David Perry, a South Kingstown police officer patrolling in the course of his official duties. Andrade sued Perry and the Town of South Kingstown for negligence, and his wife asserted loss-of-consortium and property-damage claims. A jury awarded $75,000 against Perry and the town; the judgment did not initially include prejudgment interest.
Procedural history
Michael Andrade sued David Perry and the Town of South Kingstown after an automobile accident involving Perry, an on-duty police officer. The jury returned a $75,000 verdict against Perry and the town, but the judgment initially omitted prejudgment interest. The Superior Court granted Andrade's Rule 59(e) motion to add statutory interest against Perry, and Perry appealed that portion of the judgment.
Remand instructions
The papers of the case were remanded to the Superior Court after affirmance; no substantive remand instructions were provided.