Here’s an analysis of Franklin v. City of Ozark, Ark., decided by the Arkansas Court of Appeals on May 14, 2025. You can read the text of the opinion by clicking here.

Background

  • Who sued whom?
    Clayton Franklin, as administrator for his son Cody’s estate, sued the City of Ozark, Officer Nathan Griffith, and Sergeant Joseph Griffith after Cody died in jail custody. The claim was for wrongful death, alleging excessive force and failure to provide medical care.

  • What happened?
    Cody Franklin was acting erratically and arrested in May 2016. He fought with jail staff, was repeatedly tased by officers, and died soon after. The medical examiner said he died from a combination of meth intoxication, physical struggle, restraint, and taser use.

  • What’s the legal history?
    The case started in federal court with both federal and state law claims. The Eighth Circuit ruled the officers’ force wasn’t excessive under federal law, so they had “qualified immunity” on the civil rights claims. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice (meaning they could be refiled in state court), which Franklin then did.

  1. Statute of Limitations:
    Did Franklin file the wrongful death suit too late?

  2. Immunity:
    Are the City and the officers immune from the wrongful death lawsuit under Arkansas law?

The Court of Appeals focused on the second issue—immunity.

The Court’s Analysis

Statutory Immunity in Arkansas

  • Arkansas law (Ark. Code. Ann. § 21-9-301) gives cities, counties, and their employees immunity from lawsuits for damages “except to the extent that they may be covered by liability insurance.” 
  • This immunity applies to claims of negligence—including gross negligence or “willful and wanton” negligence—but not to intentional torts (like assault or battery, if they are truly intentional).

What Did Franklin Allege?

Franklin’s amended complaint claimed “willful and wanton” misconduct by the officers but did not allege specific intentional acts (like deliberately trying to harm Cody with the desire to cause his death).

Did That Matter?

Yes. The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that “willful and wanton misconduct” is just a high degree of negligence, not an intentional tort. So, unless Franklin alleged the officers deliberately tried to harm Cody—and wanted that harm to happen—the City and officers are immune.

Did the City Have Insurance?

No. The mayor swore there was no insurance that would cover this incident, so no exception to immunity applied.

The Result

  • The circuit court (trial court) dismissed Franklin’s case, saying the City and officers were immune.
  • The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the dismissal.
  • Because the immunity issue was conclusive, they didn’t even need to rule on whether the case was filed on time.

Why This Matters

  • For lawsuits against Arkansas cities and officers, it’s not enough to allege “willful and wanton” or even grossly negligent conduct. You have to allege (and prove) truly intentional acts if you want to get around governmental immunity.
  • If the city doesn’t have insurance that covers the claim, you’re out of luck unless you can show intentional wrongdoing.

Key Takeaways

  • “Willful and wanton” = heightened negligence, but still not enough to defeat immunity.
  • Actual, deliberate intent to harm is required to get around Arkansas’s statutory immunity for municipalities and their employees.
  • If there’s no insurance, immunity almost always applies unless you’ve got a clear intentional tort.

Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.

Post A Comment