Michael Talley; Jonesboro Police Department; And City of Jonesboro, Arkansas v. Carolyn Johnson, Michael Johnson, and Hailey Johnson (Now Boyd)

── Michael Talley; Jonesboro Police Department; And City of Jonesboro, Arkansas v. Carolyn Johnson, Michael Johnson, and Hailey Johnson (Now Boyd) ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 177 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-24-802 Opinion Delivered March 11, 2026 MICHAEL TALLEY; JONESBORO APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND CITY OF COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN JONESBORO, ARKANSAS DISTRICT APPELLANTS [NO. 16JCV-19-426] V. HONORABLE BENTLEY E. STORY, JUDGE CAROLYN JOHNSON, MICHAEL JOHNSON, AND HAILEY JOHNSON (NOW BOYD) APPELLEES REVERSED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge This appeal arises from a traffic accident that occurred on May 3, 2017, when a patrol car driven by appellant Michael Talley of the Jonesboro Police Department collided with a car being driven by appellee Carolyn Johnson with appellees Michael Johnson and Hailey Johnson (now Boyd) riding as passengers (collectively “the Johnsons”). The Johnsons filed a complaint against Talley and the City of Jonesboro (the City) alleging that Talley was negligent and seeking damages for their injuries. The Johnsons later filed an amended complaint alleging new claims against Talley for felony battery and felony aggravated assault. The City and Talley filed a joint counterclaim for interpleader admitting liability with respect to the negligence claim and requesting permission to pay $50,000 into the court’s registry, which represented the limit of the City’s statutorily mandated liability-insurance coverage. The City and Talley contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they should be discharged from any further liability because they are entitled to tort immunity. The trial court entered an order that accepted the City’s request to interplead the $50,000 maximum limit of the City’s liability exposure. In that order, the trial court also denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Johnsons had alleged acts by Talley which they asserted go beyond immunity and that it was for a jury to determine whether Talley’s conduct was intentional. The trial court also found in the order that the interpleader will not affect any claims the Johnsons might have against Talley for any proved acts that were outside the scope of his employment. Talley now appeals from the order denying his motion to dismiss.1 Talley argues that the trial court erred in denying him immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301 and Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-303(b). Talley argues further that the trial court erred in denying him qualified immunity. We agree that Talley was entitled to immunity from any tort liability beyond the limit of the mandated insurance coverage, and we therefore reverse. 1 The order was immediately appealable under Ark. R. App. P.–Civil 2(a)(10), which provides that an appeal may be taken from “[a]n order denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on the defense of sovereign immunity or the immunity of a government official.” 2  I. Facts and Procedural History This litigation began on May 2, 2019, when the Johnsons filed a complaint against Talley and the City. In the complaint, the Johnsons alleged that Talley was operating his patrol car southbound during the course and scope of his employment on the afternoon of May 3, 2017, when he struck the Johnsons’ car, which was traveling westbound, in an intersection. The complaint alleged that Talley was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to keep his vehicle under reasonable control, failing to drive at a reasonable speed, failing to stop at the stop sign, and failing to exercise ordinary care under