Plaintiffs sued the wrong entity. Maricopa County is not vicariously liable for a deputy sheriff’s negligent driving. The party vicariously responsible is the Maricopa County Sheriff as an elected official whose duties are imposed by statute and the Arizona Constitution. The sheriff controls his deputies. The court cites 50 years of precedent including its own memorandum decision from earlier this year. The county’s fiscal accountability for the sheriff’s office including paying salary, expenses, and providing equipment is not the control imposing vicarious liability. The court patiently addresses each of plaintiffs’ arguments, but the dismissal is inevitable. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to serve the sheriff with a notice of claim under A.R.S. § 12-821, and the court rejects the argument the only “entity” is the county. The sheriff is also an entity. A few minor criticisms. The court’s references other jurisdictions holding a sheriff is an independently elected officer and vicarious liability does not attach to the county. No need. Just stick with Arizona law. There is also little need to bring in federal civil rights cases either. Our second minor suggestion is the time the court spends checking dictionaries. Here, the court checks the word “entity” and whether an entity includes the sheriff. We understand Justice Scalia’s influence. Our readers may recall the spat between MCI and AT&T, when Scalia used four different dictionaries to help define the word “modify.” But dictionaries give choices too. While a sign of a good judge is not to play with words, we are confident in our court of appeals using common sense definitions. Do we really need a reference to Merriam-Webster? Common sense tells us an entity includes a person. Is this not what courts are really saying when they look in dictionaries anyway?

link to opinion