Constable Chauncey Tudor has hotly disputed the allegations made in former Jessamine County Sheriff Sgt. David Mudd’s lawsuit, which was filed last month.
Mudd alleges Tudor maliciously filed a criminal complaint about an altercation between the two law-enforcement agents that occurred the night of Oct. 29, 2011.
Mudd claims the complaint created a stigma around him that lead to him being ostracized and forced him to seek law-enforcement work outside of Jessamine County.
In Tudor’s complaint, he alleged that Mudd, then a Jessamine County sheriff’s sergeant, “attempted and threatened physical confrontation.”
The complaint alleges Mudd “made offensive course of utterance” directed at Tudor and that he restrained the constable from leaving an area by parking his patrol car in front of him, two other officers and a civilian that were trying to leave.
Tudor also claims his life was “endangered” when he narrowly avoided being struck by Mudd’s patrol car that night when the sergeant did finally leave the scene.
Tudor’s complaint was dismissed in March by a Jessamine County grand jury. The testimony and related evidence was deemed insufficient to prove the claims made by Tudor against Mudd.
Tudor said there are witnesses — the civilian and two other officers — to that night’s altercation who were ignored.
However, Tudor said that he acted within his authority and that his complaint.
Mudd’s role as patrol deputy was changed to administrative at the main office during the five months of the investigation, but after he was cleared he said he was asked to find work somewhere else.
By suing Tudor last month, Mudd has also sued the county, though not listed as a defendant, because the constable is an elected position.
Nicholasville attorney Bruce Smith represents Tudor on behalf of Kentucky Association of Counties (KACo). Smith said that the response filed last week in the clerk’s office is a sufficient statement to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Mudd.
In the written response to Mudd’s lawsuit filed by Smith last week, it states that as constable Tudor acted in good faith, without malice and within the scope of his duties as a public officer.
It also states that as a public officer Tudor is not liable for his acts or omissions while exercising reasonable or due care in the execution or enforcement of any law, which the response claims he did at all times.
Any damages suffered by the Mudd were wholly or partially caused by his own negligence and should be apportioned to him in accordance with his fault, the response states.
“Mudd engaged in a course of conduct that has exacerbated his injuries and damages,” the response states. “(The) Constable has complied with all duties imposed upon him by law and relies upon his lack of negligence or any wrongful conduct in this case.”
There was no defamation of Mudd by filing the criminal complaint because Tudor was fulfilling his elected duties and all claims should be dismissed, the response states.
