Whitlock v. Jackson
754 F.Supp. 1394 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury's verdict can consistently find a law enforcement officer liable for the state law tort of battery and award punitive damages, while simultaneously finding no constitutional violation for excessive force, because the legal standard for a constitutional tort is higher than for a common law tort.
Facts:
- On August 20, 1986, police officers, including Sgt. Donald Jackson, Deputy Glenn Thompson, and Deputy Terrence Cress, arrested Richard Gaisor.
- At the time of the incident, Gaisor had been drinking, disobeyed a police order to discard a whiskey bottle, and was combative with the officers.
- During the encounter, the defendant officers struck Gaisor.
- Evidence suggested that Sgt. Jackson struck Gaisor after he had already been handcuffed and was in police custody.
- Gaisor later died from a ruptured aneurysm, although the jury did not find the officers' actions were the proximate cause of his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Eileen Whitlock, as administratrix of Richard Gaisor's estate, filed suit in the U.S. District Court against Sgt. Jackson, Deputy Thompson, and Deputy Cress.
- The complaint alleged violations of federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state tort claims, including battery and wrongful death.
- After a trial, a jury returned its verdict via a special interrogatory form.
- The jury found the defendants liable only for the state law tort of battery, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages.
- The jury found no liability on any of the federal constitutional claims and found the defendants' actions did not cause Gaisor's death.
- Following the entry of judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion for additur or, in the alternative, a new trial, arguing the jury's answers were legally inconsistent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury's verdict legally inconsistent when it finds law enforcement officers liable for the state law tort of battery and awards punitive damages, but finds no liability for constitutional violations arising from the same conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - McKinney, District Judge
No, the jury's verdict is not legally inconsistent. A jury can find an officer liable for the state law tort of battery and award punitive damages without finding a constitutional violation for excessive force because the legal standards for each claim are different. The court is required to harmonize a jury's answers on a special verdict if possible under any fair reading. The standard for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (e.g., 'unreasonably and recklessly used excessive force') is higher than the standard for a state law battery (an intentional touching in a 'rude, insolent, or angry manner'). Therefore, the jury could rationally conclude that the officers' conduct met the lower threshold for battery and was done with malice justifying punitive damages, but did not rise to the level of a constitutional tort. Not every wrong committed by a government actor amounts to a constitutional violation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between common law torts and constitutional torts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, clarifying that conduct can be wrongful and even malicious under state law without meeting the higher, more stringent standard for a constitutional violation. It underscores the judicial principle of affording great deference to a jury's findings, requiring courts to make every effort to reconcile seemingly inconsistent answers in a special verdict. The opinion also provides a useful analysis of the circuit split regarding the waiver doctrine under FRCP Rule 49(a), adopting the majority view that a failure to object to inconsistencies before the jury's discharge does not waive the issue for post-trial motions.
Unlock the full brief for Whitlock v. Jackson