a jury made factual findings and made them clearly defining the stablish that were not of korea use objective lee on reasonable force and that rivera witness the fact that only rivera witness that was that the jury credited rivera this is the excessive force that caused comfrey serious and life altering injury to surgery for me i damaged neck and head pain and severe emotional distress i rely on the verdict  rare rivera and chris district court meant findings that were not supported by the verdict factual line namely that it could have been the tackle and thought that was the excessive force  humphrey did not prove his case is also running because the jury found liability and damages in favor of the district or speculated that maybe it was based on humphries testimony that korea kicked him in the head with this  is also erroneous because of the jury credited humphrey's account of the event even in part the jury would not have singled out rivera as the only person who witnessed the excessive force the jury found admitted because in the facial injuries and that he saw blood after striking country the only witness to singularly put himself at the scene when chris struck country was repaired which explains the jury find the only rivera you'll see jerry slickly indicate like the can't reach a decision on liability or and also a lot of the cases that i that every viewer honors its their nominal damages and here we have a case where the jury awarded mr humphrey seventy thousand dollars and i think that that's evidence of a lack of a compromise liability well you know you could have easily have a situation where one juror day i'll go along with the finding of liability but i will never go along with a monetary verdict over you know such and such colors i mean that happens all the time we don't know but it's it's well within the reason of rational speculation well i suppose it's possible your honor but i don't think that there are any indicators here in my opinion that would suggest the company we wanted to leave never have indicators of compromise because we don't know what the jury that's the case or not couldn't the jury of found that you know he used excessive force initially but that the other you know more serious injuries that resulted in the medical bills were caused  by others or it was unclear and so they couldn't i mean we're obligated to try to harmonize the verdict with the damages and it just seems that there is a possibility that that that you know sort of like good parker was saying and so based on those pieces of evidence i don't think the conclusion i think you have to conclude the jury credited rivera testimony  appealing the post trial motion that set aside a punitive damages award and also you are mad challenging the motion to the extent that it set for altering the judgment or for a new trial limited to damages the plaintiff's argument is in essence that since the jury found that officer korea at some point and gauged in excessive orders that it necessarily follows that that force was the force that caused the injury to his eye which is the injury for which medical expenses were introduced into evidence as the economic damage piece of the claim however as pointed out by judge meyer and his decision the jury very well could have found  that there were d other uses of force by officer korea that did not make his actions subject to live below the including as judge meyer pointed out the tackling of mister mr humphrey but before even addressing whether or not the court could have concluded that there were other options the evidence is clear in the record that mr humphrey testified that the injuries to his eye for which he claims he's medical expenses were brought about by having received two korea did not strike him with either of those blows but rather that officer korea subsequently kicked him in the forehead resulting in a gash in his so the jury could clearly have found among other evidence that mr humphries own admission that he was not injured in his in the condition of his eye as a result of cause the eye injury the jury could have concluded that under the circumstances the actions of officer korea at that point were objectively reasonable because the jury had before it as as humphrey was resisting arrest was intoxicated and a number of other there are reasons why officer krios actions even in striking him as he did was objectively reasonable so therefore the jury did not necessarily have to find that even if they believed that he was struck in the face by officer korea they didn't have to conclude that that action by by officer korea was on reasonable in any respect further i'd like to point out the counsel referenced the fact that both in his brief and here today an oral argument that officer korea admitting in which officer korea simply acknowledges that the injury to mr conferee had to be serious enough that he was taken to the hospital but the seriousness of the injury he was unaware and also that he did admit to striking him but never said that his strike is what caused the injury to his so mr officer korea never admitted that anything he did resulted in the industry alternatively the jury could certainly have found number one that the plaintiffs didn't prove his case with regard to excessive force by officer korea as it related to any contact that officer korea had with the plaintiffs save for two possible incidents one as referred to in the report by  the opinion by judge meyer is that the testimony of mr humphrey is that ever came a point in time where he stood with his hands up in the ear followed by officer korea tackling him to the ground as judge meyer pointed out the jury may very well have believed that mr humphrey in fact raised his hands  and a manifestation of surrendering and complying with the officer and that in reaction to that it was objectively on a reasonable for officer korea to tackle him to the ground what is more consistent if it please the court is the testimony of mr humphrey that while he was lying on the ground officer crayon allegedly kicked him in the floor resulting in a gash to is for that would be a basis for the jury to have concluded that there was excessive force now if the jury so concluded that either the tackling and or the kicking in the forehead was the excessive force there was no evidence from which the jury could find any medical expenses or any form of economic damages that would be causally related to even either being tackled or being kicked in the forehead as a matter of fact the medical records from st mary's hospital where he was taken have absolutely no reference whatsoever to an injury to the forehead or a gash in the forehead or a laceration to the forehead it simply notes that the injury to the eye socket and abrasions about the face so there's absolutely no evidence that even if the jury found that the excessive force was kicking him in the forehead and causing a gash there is no medical evidence of causality to show that there was any expense incurred as a result of that now as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress for which the jury awarded damages in this case the jury could very well have found that kicking a man while he was on the ground for no apparent reason was not only excessive force but constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress for which the jury went on to award treatment the jury went on to award noneconomic damages of thirty eight thousand dollars so based upon the entire record in this case it is not at all incompatible with the evidence that the jury could have found that officer korea at engage in excessive force that that excessive force resulted in either a kick to the forehead and aghast and door tackling to the ground when he shouldn't tackle to the ground and they compensated him to the extent of thirty eight thousand dollars in economic damages and all likelihood concluded that based upon the plaintiff's own admission and the lack of any proof that the blows to the head which purportedly causing injury the eye came from officer crane the jury was left to speculate as to which of the other three officers that were defendants in this case and on the scene may have been responsible for the blows to the head with the hard object that the plaintiff himself claims was the cause of the injury which is the basis for the medical expenses that are being claimed at this particular point in time one minute the truck the trial court was clearly within its  authority and clearly did not abuse its discretion in not a granting of the plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment or to return this case or to allow for a new trial britches congregation beth joseph and cetera two minutes in making the assertion that the excessive force finding relates to facial injuries i'm primarily relying on the verdict finding rivera witness and when you consider all the other possible scenarios none of them are evident that that the injuries because the two hundred and seventy pound man on top of him while mr humphreys on the ground gave him an elbow to the face there's no other cause for a blow out of his orbital