Title: Coll v. Johnson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

COLL_V_JOHNSON.92-526; 161 Vt. 163; 636 A.2d 336

[Filed 19-Nov-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 92-526


 Rene W. Coll, Jr.                            Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Rutland Superior Court

 John E. Johnson                              September Term, 1993
 and City of Rutland



 Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

 Richard S. Bloomer of Bloomer & Bloomer, P.C., Rutland, for plaintiff-
    appellant

 Peter W. Hall of Abell, Kenlan, Schwiebert & Hall, P.C., Rutland, for
    defendants-appellees



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff Rene Coll was wounded when defendant Officer
 John Johnson shot him during the course of an arrest.  Coll sued Johnson and
 the City of Rutland for gross negligence.  After trial, the jury could not
 reach a verdict and the court declared a mistrial.  Defendants subsequently
 moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted.  We reverse.
      At approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 21, 1988, Rene Coll and a
 companion robbed a convenience store in Rutland.  Police responded to the
 call and spotted the fleeing suspects.  Coll halted at the corner of a
 garage, his escape blocked by police officers.  He refused to give up and

 

 told the police he had a gun, although he was armed only with a knife.
 Officer Johnson arrived with a police dog.  He released the dog and it went
 for Coll, who held it off with his knife.  Officer Johnson's testimony at
 trial was that he was approximately twenty feet from Coll when Coll moved
 aggressively toward him and reached toward his belt for what Officer
 Johnson believed was a gun.  Fearing for his life, Officer Johnson fired at
 Coll, wounding him in the abdomen.  Coll's testimony was that he went into a
 crouch, holding the dog at bay with his knife, and never moved for fear that
 the dog would attack.
      Subsequently, Coll sued Officer Johnson and the City of Rutland,
 alleging Johnson had used unreasonable and excessive force in making the
 arrest.  In their motion for directed verdict following the mistrial,
 defendants asserted that plaintiff had failed to provide expert testimony to
 establish the standard of care for discharge of a weapon by a police officer
 in making an arrest, and therefore, plaintiff's case lacked proof of an
 essential element.  The court agreed and granted the motion.  This appeal
 followed.
      A directed verdict should not be granted if there is any evidence that
 fairly and reasonably supports the nonmoving party's case.  Meller v.
 Bartlett, 154 Vt. 622, 623-24, 580 A.2d 484, 485 (1990).  A directed verdict
 will be upheld, however, if the nonmoving party fails to present evidence on
 an essential element of that party's case.  Id. at 624, 580 A.2d  at 485.
 On appeal, we will review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
 nonmoving party, excluding all modifying evidence. Id. at 623, 580 A.2d  at
 485.

 

        The issue before us is whether expert testimony is necessary to
 establish the standard of care a police officer must exercise when using
 force to make an arrest.  Plaintiff did not provide an expert witness on
 this subject.  The trial court held that such testimony was required,
 stating that "[b]y submitting the case to a jury without the benefit of
 expert testimony as to the standard of care, the court presented an
 opportunity to the jury to speculate as to what standard of care should be
 imposed upon a police officer acting in the course of duty."  We disagree.
      It is the court's duty to instruct the jury on all issues essential to
 the case.  Arnold v. Cantini, 154 Vt. 142, 145, 573 A.2d 1193, 1195 (1990).
 This includes the standard of care that applies in a negligence action.  W.
 Prosser & W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 236 (5th ed.
 1984) (standard of care is a legal rule to be applied by the court).   Where
 a plaintiff charges that the police have used excessive force in effecting
 an arrest, "the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively
 reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, with-
 out regard to their underlying intent or motivation."  Graham v. Connor,