In a case handled by Dwight D. Murray, Esq., a partner of the firm, at the trial level, the D.C. Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in a 1993 case involving the shooting death of one Jeffrey Phelan at his DC residence by Wesley Thompson, then an off duty officer with the Mt. Rainier Police Department. Mrs. Karen Phelan, the decedent’s widow, personal representative of decedent’s estate, and on behalf of decedent’s parents filed a complaint under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts and for civil rights violations against Wesley Thompson as an individual and as a Mount Rainier police officer, Mount Rainier Police Chief, John Thompson, as well as the City of Mount Rainier and its Police Department.

According to Wesley Thompson’s written statement, on the night of the shooting he accompanied his roommate, Dean Reed to the home of Mr. Reed’s former wife, Karen Phelan, in order to take possession of an automobile that Reed still owned with her. After taking the car, Thompson and Reed went back to the Phelan residence to inform Mrs. Phelan of the situation. Thompson waited while Reed went to the door. An argument ensued between Reed and the decedent. Mr. Thompson drew his weapon in response to his belief that the decedent was moving for his own weapon and shot the decedent to death.

The City of Mt. Rainier, along with the city police chief, moved for summary judgment stating that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They further contended that the evidence did not show that Thompson was acting within his employment as a police officer or that the city of Mt. Rainier was responsible for the injury and death of the decedent.

The defense motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court on the grounds that plaintiff’s evidence was inadequate to permit a jury to find that the city of Mt. Rainier’s alleged failure to train and terminate Thompson reflected conscious disregard of an obvious risk that he would misuse his firearm. Plaintiff conceded that Thompson was not acting within his employment as a police officer when the shooting occurred, therefore, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims of negligent supervision, negligent retention of employment and negligent entrustment of a firearm. The trial court further stated that plaintiff had provided no persuasive legal authority to prove direct liability between Thompson’s actions and the city of Mt. Rainier, and the Mt. Rainier Police Department.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that the city of Mt. Rainier was liable for negligent supervision and retention of a police officer and negligent entrustment of a firearm. She further appealed the court’s ruling denying her motion to compel production of a police log book.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. It was found that on the night of the shooting, Thompson did not come into contact with the decedent because of any task associated with his employment as a Mt. Rainier police officer. He was, in fact, off duty at the time, accompanying his roommate to a private residence in the District of Columbia where he had no authority as a police officer. He had testified that he was accompanying his roommate, Mr. Reed, for the purpose of assisting him with a property dispute involving Reed’s ex-wife.

The Court of Appeals held that minor incidents of misconduct by the officer, when taken as a whole, were not enough to allow the police department to foresee that Officer Thompson might use his firearm to cause injury or death in a dispute outside of his duties as a police officer. The evidence did not demonstrated that any of his past misconduct as a police officer had involved his firearm, that he lacked proficiency in the use of his firearm, or that he had used excessive force when detaining suspects.

Appellant lastly contended that court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to compel discovery of the police complaint log book and all complaints filed against Officer Thompson. The court had ruled that the log books and complaints against Officer Thompson were irrelevant to the incident in question. It stated that Officer Thompson’s entire personnel file had been disclosed during discovery and that appellant had the opportunity to obtain any information it wanted during Thompson’s deposition. It further stated that the appellant failed to follow proper statutory procedure when attempting to obtain the records in question.

The City of Mt. Rainier objected to the request that it produce records of its internal investigation of Officer Thompson as such documents are confidential and require a release signed by the officer.

The trial court ruled that the facts and circumstances available did not warrant disclosure and that the information available in the log books was irrelevant.

The appellate court concluded that there had been sufficient discovery time for the appellant to obtain all the information pertinent to its case. Therefore, trial court was not found to have abused its discretion in denying the request.