# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 14 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ji m m y Lee Lett erm an ; An ne tt e Fay L et te rm an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Jo n Do es , in di vi du al ly, an d i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

St ev en Lam

m ers ; No reen Gast in eau ; J erry Farns wor th ; Br y an Earls

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Mar ci a Je nn in gs

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 17 71

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ji m m y Lee Lett erm an ; An ne tt e Fay L et te rm an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Jo n Do es , in di vi du al ly, an d i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an tSt ev en Lam m ers ; No reen Gast in eau ; J erry Farns wor th ; Br y an Earls

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Mar ci a Je nn in gs

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Jo se ph

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 5 , 20 17
Fil ed : J un e 2 2, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ji m m y Lee an d Ann et t e F a y Le tt erm an br ou gh t su it un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

an d Mi ss ou ri t o r t l a w ag ai ns t of fic ers of th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s (“ Defen da nt s” ) fo r th e de at h of th ei r so n whi le in cu st od y

. Thre e of th e Defen da nt s

pr ev io us ly ap pe al ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r de nyin g th em qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d 1

we affi rm ed as to two of th em

. Let te rma n v. Doe s , 78 9 F.3 d 85 6

, 8 6 3

- 6 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ). Defen da nt s no w ap pe al a jury ve rd ic t in fav or of th e Lett erm an s. Fo r th e

fo ll owi ng reas on s, we af

fir m

.

The Ho n or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In la te 20 11

, Dan ia l Lett erm an (“ Dan ia l” ) be ga n to se rv e a se nt en ce fo r a dr ug

rel at ed pr ob at io n vi ol a t i o n at th e W es te rn Rec ep ti on , Diag no st ic

, an d Co rrec ti on al

Cen te r (“ W RDCC” ) of th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrecti on s. Dur in g hi s se nt en ce,

m en ta l he al th st aff pl aced Dan ia l on su ic id e watc h an d m ov ed h i m t o a s e c ur ed

,
pa dd ed ro om in th e Tran si ti on al Care Uni t (“ TCU”). The faci li ty’ s cl os e ob se rv at io n

po li cy req ui red of

fic ers to ch eck on Dan ia l ev ery f i f te en m in ut es an d reco rd th ei r
ob se rv at io ns in a cl os e ob se rv at io n lo g. If th ey co ul d no t ob se rv e m ov em en t, ob ta in

a ve rb al res po ns e, or se e hi m br eat hi ng , th e of f i c ers were req ui red to rep or t it as a

m ed ic al em erg en cy

.

Ju st be fo re m id ni gh t on Nov em be r 17

, 20 11

, Dan ia l fel l twi ce in hi s pa dd ed

cel l. Afte r th e fir st fal l, Dan ia l go t ba ck up

. In th e se co nd f a l l

, D a ni al hi t hi s he ad

on th e do or

jam b, cau si ng a no is e lo ud en ou gh to pr om pt Offi cer St ev en Lam

m ers , th e

of fic er on du ty, to co m e to th e cel l t o c h e c k o n h i m. Lam m ers sa w Dan ia l on th e

gr ou nd an d a sk ed if h e n eed ed m ed ic al as si st an ce. Dan ia l di d no t resp on d v erb al ly

bu t wav ed hi s ha nd

. Lam m ers di d n o t o b t a i n medi cal as si st an ce an d no te d in th e
cl os e o bs erv at io n lo g th at Dan ia l was “ go od .” Dani al rem ai ne d c on sc io us be twee n

te n and twen ty m in ut es aft er th e fal l bu t di d no t m ov e fro m hi s po si ti on on th e flo or
be si de th e d oo r.

W he n Offi cer Nor een Gas ti ne au rel i e v ed Lam m ers at 7: 30 a.m ., Dan ia l was

st il l lying on th e flo or by th e do or , an d Lam m ers in fo rm ed Gas ti ne au th at Dan ia l ha d

no t m ov ed al l ni gh t aft er fal li ng

. Dur in g th e m or ni ng , on e of th e TCU do ct or s cam e

to sp eak wit h Dan ia l an d kn oc ke d on th e do or of hi s cel l. In res po ns e, Dan ia l gr un te d

an d m ov ed hi s fo ot an d he ad

. Aro un d 9 a.m ., m ed ic al pe rs on ne l in di cat ed th at Dan ia l

ne ed ed to be awo ke n, an d Gas ti ne au ki ck ed th e do or , y el le d at Dan ia l, an d sp la sh ed

wate r on hi s face

. In res p o n s e , D a ni al m ov ed hi s he ad sl ig ht ly an d flu tt ered hi s

ey el id s. Gas ti ne au co nt act ed Serg ean t Je rry Farn swo rth an d inf or m ed him tha t Dan ia l

-3

-ha d no t m ov ed fro m hi s po si ti on si nc e th e be gi nn in g of he r sh ift an d th at th e cel l do or

n e e d e d to be op en ed so m ed ic al pe rs on ne l co ul d ch eck Dan ia l’s vi ta l si gn s.

Farn swo rth in di cat ed th at he co ul d no t sp are an of fic er t o acce ss th e cel l. Sh or tl y
th erea fte r, Lieu te na nt Bryan Earl s, th e su pe rv is in g of fic er, pa ss ed th ro ug h th e TCU

on hi s ro un ds

, an d a nu rs e req ue st ed th at Earl s op en th e do or so sh e co ul d c h e c k

Dan ia l’s vit al s. Gas ti ne au in fo rm ed Earl s th at Dan ia l h ad no t m ov ed al l day. Earl s

refu se d to op en th e cel l, in st ead su gg es ti ng th at th ey “ le t sl eep in g do gs li e.” Aro un d

2: 00 p.m ., M a rci a Je nn in gs , th e TCU’s Fu nc ti on al Uni t Man ag er, ob se rv ed Dan ia l
lying in a st ran ge po si ti on , an d Gas ti ne au in fo rm ed he r th at Dan ia l ha d no t m ov ed

si nc e la st ni gh t an d ha d no t eat en

. Je nn in gs di d no t rep or t it as a m ed ic al em erg en cy ;

rat he r, sh e wen t to he r of fic e an d be ga n m ak in g ph on e cal ls in an at te m pt to ge t

Dan ia l’s cel l do or op en

. Aro un d 4: 00 p.m ., a te am fin al ly op en ed th e cel l do or , an d

th e nu rs e de te rm in ed th at Dan ia l req ui red im m ed ia te m ed ic al at te nt io n. Dan ia l was

tra ns po rte d to th e h os pi ta l, whe re he di ed of su bd ur al bl eed in g cau se d by a he ad

in jury.

Dan ia l’s pa ren ts su ed th e Defen da nt s fo r de ni al of m ed ic al care , pe rs on al

in juri es , an d wro ng fu l de at h un de r b o t h 4 2 U

. S .C. § 19 83 an d Mi ss ou ri to rt la w.
Thre e of th e Defen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba s i s of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y , an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Thi s co ur t affi rm ed ex cep t as to

Je nn in gs

. Let t er man , 78 9 F.3 d at 86 5. The cas e pr oc eed ed to tri al an d th e jury

ren de red a ve rd ic t in fav or of th e Lett erm an s. For t he de ni al of m ed ic al care cla im

, th e jury award ed $6 ,79 3.2 9 fo r fu ne ral an d bu ria l ex pe n s e s , $ 1 00 ,00 0 fo r pa in an d

su ffer in g, an d $1 50 ,00 0 fo r th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol a t i o n

. Th e jury al so award ed

pu ni ti ve da m ag es ag ai ns t each de fen da nt rel at ed to th e de ni al of m ed ic al care cl ai m

. Fo r th e wro ng fu l de at h cl ai m , th e jury award ed $1 ,00 0,0 0 0

. Defen da nt s ren ewed

th ei r req ue st fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w an d al te rn at iv el y m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al

, ch al le ng in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns an d s ev eral ev id en ti ary ru li ng s. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io ns an d award ed at to rn ey ’s fees an d co st s to th e Lett erm an s pu rs ua nt

to 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 8. Defe nd an ts no w app eal

.

-4

-II . Dis cus si on

Defen da nt s rai se a nu m

be r of is su es on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, th ey c o n t e n d th ey are

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w as to th e pa in an d su f f e r i n g cl ai m

. Seco nd

, Defen da nt s arg ue th at t h e y are en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al be cau se th e jury was no t

in st ru ct e d o n o f

f i ci al im m un it y un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. Defen da nt s al so arg ue a ne w
tri al is warran te d b ecau se th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in sev eral ev id en ti ary ru li ng s.

A. Jud gment a s a Mat ter o f La w

W e “ rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of

la w de no vo , us in g th e sa m e st an da rd s as th e di st ric t co ur t.” Lu cker t v. Dod ge Ct y. , 68 4 F.3 d 80 8, 8 1 6 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 12 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, “ [w]e rev ie w th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty, dr awin g al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es i n i t s f

a v o r an d res ol vi ng al l fact ua l di sp ut es in it s fav or .” Li be rt y Mut

. Fir e In s. Co . v. Sco tt , 48 6 F .3d 41 8, 4 22 (8t h C ir. 20 07 ). The co ur t i s n ot at l ib ert y

to rewei gh th e ev id en ce “ or co ns id er qu es ti on s of cred ib il it y ,” an d it m us t “ gi ve gr eat

de fere nc e to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.” How ar d v

. M o

. Bon e & Jo in t Ct r., In c. , 61 5 F.3 d

99 1, 99 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( c i t a t i o ns om it te d)

. “ Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of la w is

ap pr op ria te on ly whe n al l of t h e e v id en ce po in ts on e way an d is su sc ep ti bl e of no

reas on ab le in fere nc e su st ai ni ng th e po si ti on of th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

Defen da nt s co nt en d th at th e ev id en ce is no t su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e award of

da m ag es fo r pa in an d su ffer in g be cau se Dan ia l co ul d on ly ha ve ex pe rie nc ed pa in an d

su ffer in g du rin g th e twen ty m i n u t e s h e ret ai ne d co ns ci ou sn es s aft er hi s se co nd fal l

an d th at “ th ere was no ev id en ce an y Defen da nt kn owi ng ly fai le d to pr ov id e

Lett erm an ne ed ed care ” du rin g th at pe rio d. Howev er, ev en as su m in g Defen da nt s are

co rrec t th at no ev id en ce de m on st rat es th ey kn owi ng ly fai le d to pr ov id e ne ed ed care
wit hi n twen ty m in ut es aft er th e se co nd fal l, Defen da nt s ig no re ev id en ce th at Dan ia l

-5

-di d n ot rem ai n c om pl et el y un co ns ci ou s t hr ou gh ou t t he fol lo win g h ou rs . Gas ti ne au

te st i f ie d th at ab ou t m id -m or ni ng sh e at te m pt ed to el ic it a res po ns e fro m Dan ia l by

ki ck in g on th e do or , y el li ng at hi m , an d sp rin kl in g wate r on hi s face

. Alt ho ug h he di d

no t res po nd ve rb al ly, he di d m ov e hi s he ad an d flu tt er hi s ey el id s. Earl ie r in th e

m or ni ng , on e of th e TCU do ct or s at te m pt ed to el ic it a res po ns e fro m Dan ia l by

kn oc ki ng on th e do or , a n d h e g ru nt ed an d m ov ed hi s fo ot an d he ad sl ig ht ly.

Defen da nt s arg ue th a t th es e m ov em en ts are co ns is te nt wit h li gh t un co ns ci ou sn es s.

Howev er, Dan ia l’s m ov em en ts are al so co ns is te nt wit h c on sc io us ne ss , and th e jury

is en ti tl ed to m ak e th at de te rm in at io n. Defen da nt s al so su gg es t th at Dr. Mar y Cas e,

th e Lett erm an s’ ex pe rt wit ne ss , co nc lu de d th at Dan ia l ne ve r reg ai ne d co ns ci ou sn es s.

Howev er, th ey m is ch arac te riz e he r te st im on y

. Dr. Cas e te st ifi ed th at

, in he r op in io n,

Dan ia l was no t co ns ci ou s lo ng er th an twen ty m in ut es aft er hi s se co nd fal l. Sh e was

no t as ke d whe th er he reg ai ne d co ns ci ou sn es s at a l a t e r t i me. Thu s, th e ev id en ce is

su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a reas on ab le in fere nc e su st ai ni ng th e award of da m ag es fo r pa in

an d su ffer in g. As a res ul t, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of jud gm en t as a

m at te r of law.

B. Mot io n fo r New Tri al

Defen da nt s n e x t a pp eal th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io n fo r a ne w
tri al

. “ Und er [Fede ral Ru le of Ci vi l Proc ed ur e] 59

, th e de ci si on to gr an t a ne w tri al

li es wit hi n th e s o u n d di sc ret io n of th e tri al co ur t, an d it s di sc ret io n wil l no t be

rev ers ed on ap pe al ab se nt a cl ear ab us e of th at di sc ret io n.” Id

. at 9 9 5

. Defen da nt s

arg ue th at th e d is tri ct co ur t erred by fai li ng to in st ru ct th e jury on of fic ia l im m un it y

un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. Defen da nt s al so ch al le ng e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s refu sa l to ad m it

ev id en ce reg ard in g (1 ) th e m ed ic al st aff’s la ck of co nc ern f o r D a ni al ’s

no nr es po ns iv en es s , ( 2 ) Dan ia l’s ba d ch arac te r, an d (3 ) Dan ia l’s po st hu m ou s so ci al

se cu rit y di sa bi li ty ben efi ts award

.

-6

-1. Of fi ci al Immun it y

Alt ho ug h Defen da nt s rai se d of fic ia l im m

un it y al on g wit h qu al ifi ed im m un it y

in th ei r m ot io ns fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at it req ui red

m o r e e v i d e n c e an d de cl in ed to de ci de of fic ia l im m un it y un ti l tri al

. Thu s, of fic ia l

im m un it y was no t at is su e in th e pr ev io us , in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Se e Let te rma n , 78 9

F.3 d at 85 6. At tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t d e c i d e d as a m at te r of la w th at Defen da nt s

were no t en ti tl ed to of

fic ia l im m

un it y

. Acco rd in gl y , it in st ru ct ed th e jury to fin d th e

Defen da nt s l ia bl e if th ey were ne gl ig en t. Defe nd an ts co nt en d t ha t t he y are en ti tl ed

to of fic ia l im m

un it y an d, as a res ul t, th e jury sh ou ld ha ve be en in st ru ct ed to ho ld th em

li ab le on ly if th ey act ed wit h m al ic e. Alt ho ug h Defen da n t s ch arac te riz e th ei r

arg um en t as ch al le ng in g th e jur y in st ru ct io ns , it is m or e pr op erl y co ns tru ed as
ch al le ng i n g t he di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th ey were no t en ti tl ed to of fic ia l

im m un it y

. Thu s, whe th er Defen da nt s are en ti tl ed to of fic ia l im m un it y is a qu es ti on 2

of la w we rev ie w de no vo

. Mur ra y , 91 5 F

. 2 d a t 1 1 9 9 ; se e al so Bou de v. Ci ty of
Ray mor e , 8 55 F.3 d 93 0, 93 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (rev ie win g t he di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f

su m m ary jud gm en t b as ed on off ic ia l i m m un it y de no vo ).

Mi ss ou ri ap pl ie s th e do ct rin e of of fic ia l im m

un it y to “ pr ot ect [] pu bl ic

em pl oyees fro m li ab il it y fo r al le ge d act s of ne gl ig en ce co m m it te d du rin g th e co ur se

of th ei r of fic ia l du ti es fo r th e pe rfo rm an ce of di sc ret io na ry act s.” So ut he rs v. Ci ty of

Far min gt on , 26 3 S.W .3d 60 3, 61 0 (Mo

. 20 08 ) (en ba n c )

. “Th e of fic ia l im m

un it y

W e no te th at a fin di ng of of fic ia l im m

un it y us ua ll y pr ev en ts a cas e fro m go in g 2

to tri al rat he r th an in fo rm in g jury in st ru ct io ns

. Se e Mur ra y v. Leys ho ck

, 91 5 F

. 2d

11 96

, 11 99 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (aff irming gr an t of jud gm en t no twi th st an di ng th e ve rd ic t

on th e ba si s of of

fic ia l im m

un it y an d no ti ng th at “ [u ]n d e r t h e well -es ta bl is he d
Mi ss ou ri of

fic ia l im m

un it y d o c t r in e, it is hi gh ly im pr ob ab le th at th e Mi ss ou ri
Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld ha ve al lo wed Mu rray’ s s ta te law n eg li ge nc e cl ai m to go to a jury as a m at te r of la w” (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ); se e al so Haw ki ns v. Ci ty of

Far min gt on , 18 9 F.3 d 69 5, 70 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (aff irming jud gm e n t a s a mat te r of la w as to a

ne gl ig en ce cl ai m

on th e b as is of o ffi ci al im m un it y ).

-7

-do ct rin e, ho wev er, do es no t pr ov id e pu bl ic em pl oyees im m

un it y fo r to rts co m

m it te d

whe n act in g in a m i n i s t e r i al cap aci ty.” Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ A di sc ret io na ry act

req ui res th e ex erci se of reas on in th e ad ap ta ti on of m ean s to an en d an d di sc ret io n in

de te rm in in g h ow o r whe th er an act sh ou ld be do ne or c ou rs e p ur su ed ,” id

. (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

, whi le a m in is te r i a l f u n c t io n “ is on e of a cl eri cal na tu re whi ch a pu bl ic

of fic er i s re qu ire d t o p erfo rm up on a gi ve n st at e of fact s, in a pre sc rib ed m an ne r, in

ob ed ie nc e to th e m an da te of l eg al au th or it y , wit ho ut reg ard to hi s o wn ju dg m en t o r

op in io n co nc ern in g th e pr op rie ty of th e act to be pe rfo rm ed ,” id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W hi ch cat eg or y an act fal ls in to is de te rm in ed “ on a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s” co ns id eri ng

th ree fact or s: “ (1 ) th e na tu re of th e pu bl ic em pl oyee’s du ti es ; (2 ) th e ex te nt to whi ch

th e act in vo lv es p o l i c ym a ki ng or ex erci se of pr of es si on al jud gm en t; an d (3 ) th e

co ns eq ue nc es of no t app lying off ic ia l i m m un it y .” Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er,

of fic ia l im m

un it y do es no t ap pl y whe re th e d i s c r e t i on ary act “ is wil lfu ll y wro ng or
do ne wit h m al ic e o r co rru pt io n.” Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Defen da nt s pr im ari ly ch al l e n ge th e fir st pr on g of th e of fic ia l im m

un it y te st

,
arg ui ng th at th e na tu re of t h e o f fic ers ’ du ti es un de r th e cl os e-o bs erv at io n po li cy
de m on st rat es th at t h e po li cy is di sc ret io na ry

. Defen da nt s co nt en d th at th e of fic ers

m us t us e di sc ret io n in d et erm in in g whe th er an in m at e ha s sh own m ov em en t or

res po ns e be cau se in m at es are al lo wed to sl eep whi le on cl os e ob se rv at io n. Thu s, th ey

arg ue , o ffi cers m

us t di ffer en ti at e be twee n l ack of r es po ns e d ue to sl eep an d la ck of

res po n s e du e to m ed ic al em erg en cy to de te rm in e if an d whe n to rep or t

no nr es po ns iv en es s un de r th e po li c y. H o w e ve r, th is as se rti on is in accu rat e. The

cl os e-o bs erv at io n po li cy req u i r e s of fic ers to ch eck on th e in m at e ev ery fif te en

m in ut es an d rep or t as a m ed ic al em erg en cy an y in st an ce whe n th ey can no t o bs erv e

m ov em en t or ob ta in a ve rb al res po ns e or whe n it a p p e a r s th at th e in m at e is no t

br eat hi ng

. W he th er th e in m at e is as le ep is irr el ev an t, b e c a us e th e m ov em en t

req ui rem en t m ay be sa ti sf ie d by th e ris e an d fal l of th e in m at e’s ch es t as he br eat he s.
The du ty to rep or t a m e d i c a l em erg en cy whe n on e of th es e cri te ria is m et is

-8

-m an da to ry an d do es no t de pe nd on th e of fic er’s as se ss m en t of w h et he r a m ed ic al

em erg en cy

act ua ll y ex is ts

.

Mo reo ve r, ev en if we acce pt Defen da nt s’ co nt en ti on th at ex ecu ti ng th e cl os eob se rv at io n po li cy req ui res di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g wha t co ns ti tu te s m ov em en t or

res po ns e , i t do es no t fo ll ow th at th e cl os e-o bs erv at io n po li cy is di sc ret io na ry fo r

pu rp os es of of

fic ia l im m

un it y

. Fo r ex am

pl e, dr iv in g in he ren tl y in vo lv es so m e
di sc ret io n, bu t po li ce of

fic ers rece iv e of

fic ia l im m

un it y on ly whe n res po nd in g to an

em erg en cy si tu at io n. So ut he rs , 26 3 S. W. 3 d a t 6 1 8

. The y do no t rece iv e of fic ia l

im m un it y whe n dr iv in g to no ne m erg en cy si tu at io ns , ev en whe n th e dr iv in g is

pe rfo rm ed on du ty. Id

. In th e sa m e way , ev en if di sc ret io n is in vo lv ed in de te rm in in g
whe th er th e in m at e ha s m an ife st ed th e ne ces sa ry res po ns e, it do es no t fo ll ow th at th e

act of rep or ti ng a m ed ic al em erg en cy whe n a res po ns e is no t rece iv ed is di sc ret io na ry

.

The se co nd an d th ird fact or s al so weig h in fav or of fin di ng th e po li cy

m an da to ry rat he r th an di sc ret io na ry

. The of fic ers on ly are cal le d up on to ob se rv e th e

i n mat e an d ob ta in a res po ns e at a pr es cri be d in te rv al

. The ta sk co nf er s n o

po li cy m ak in g au th or it y an d req ui res no pr of es si on al jud gme n t

. Fi na ll y , im po si ng

li ab il it y in th es e ci rcu m st an ces wou ld no t ha ve th e effe ct of m ak in g of fic er s

in ap pr op ria te ly cau ti ou s— th e co ns eq ue nc e of fic ia l im m

un it y is de si gn ed to pr ev en t.

Se e, e.g

. , Dav is v. La mbe rt -S t. Lo ui s In t’l Air po rt

, 19 3 S.W .3d 76 0, 76 3 (Mo

. 20 06 )
(en ba nc ) (“ Im

po si ng li ab il it y up on th e of fic er in th es e cas es m ig ht de la y res po ns es

to em erg en cy cal ls

, th ereb y ad ve rs el y affe ct in g of fic ers or ci ti zen s in ne ed of

em erg en cy as si st an ce.”)

. Thu s, th e cl os e-o bs erv at io n po li c y fit s ne at ly in to th e

cat eg or y of act io ns “ whi ch a pu bl ic of fic er is req ui red to pe rfo rm up on a gi ve n st at e

o f f a c t s, in a pr es cri be d m an ne r, in ob ed ie nc e to th e m an da te of le ga l au th or i t y,
wit ho ut reg ard to hi s own jud gm en t or op in io n co nc ern in g th e pr op rie ty of th e act to

be pe rfo rm ed .” S o u t h er s , 26 3 S.W .3d at 61 0 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. As a res ul t, th e
cl os e-o bs erv at io n po li cy is m in is te ria l an d Defen d a n t s were no t en ti tl ed to of fic ia l

im m un it y

.

-9

-2. Evi de nc e o f Med ic al

St af f Res po ns e

Defen da nt s ne xt co nt en d th at th ey are en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al be cau se th e di st ric t

co ur t refu se d to ad m it ev id en ce th at m ed ic al st aff at W RDCC were un co nc ern ed wit h

Dan ia l’s no nr es po ns iv en es s bec au se th ey be li ev ed he was sl eep in g. Thi s evi de nc e,

th ey arg ue , wou ld de m on st rat e th at Defen da nt s di d no t ha ve a c t ua l kn owl ed ge of

Dan ia l’s m ed ic al ne ed s. Se e Kr ou t v. Go emmer , 58 3 F .3d 55 7, 5 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(ex pl ai ni ng th at t o pr ov e a cl ai m of de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to an in m at e’s se rio us

m ed ic al ne ed s, th e pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at th e of

fic ers “ act ua ll y kn ew of

, bu t

de li be rat el y di sr eg ard ed

, [th e in m at e’s] m ed ic al ne ed s” )). “ Ru li ng s on ad m is si bi li ty

of ev id en ce wi ll no t be reve rs ed ab se nt a cl ear a nd pre jud ic ia l ab us e o f di sc ret io n.”

Pit tma n v . Fra ze r , 12 9 F .3d 98 3, 9 89 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. In th e fir st ap pe al

, we ex pl ai ne d

th at

, “ [w]hen ev al ua ti ng whe th er an act or de li be rat el y di sr eg ard ed a ris k, we co ns id er

hi s act io ns in li gh t of th e in fo rm at io n he po ss es se d at th e ti m e

. . . .” Let te rma n , 78 9

F.3 d at 86 2 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ W e fo cu s on th e m in d of th e pr is on of fic ia l an d th e

in fo rm at io n at hi s di sp os al

, no t th e th ou gh ts of th ird -p art y act or s who do no t di sc lo se

th ei r th ou gh ts .” Id

. at 86 3 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t pe rm it te d Defen da nt s

to in tro du ce ev id en ce as to what m ed ic al st aff t ol d Defen da nt s, bu t it di d no t ad m it

ev id en ce of wha t th e m ed ic al st a f f th ou gh t bu t di d no t co m m un ic at e to th em

. As a

res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d n o t c l e a rly an d pr ejud ic ia ll y ab us e it s di sc ret io n by

de te rm in in g th at e v i d e n ce of wha t m ed ic al st aff th ou gh t bu t di d no t di sc lo se is

irr el ev an t an d, t he refo re, i na dm is sa bl e. Se e Fed . R. Evi d. 4 01 , 40 2.

3. Da mag es Evid en ce

Defen da nt s fu rth er as se rt th at th ey are en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al be cau se th e di st ric t

co ur t refu se d to ad m it ev id en c e th at Dan ia l us ed dr ug s, ha d un sa vo ry ta tt oo s, ga ve

up a ch il d for a do pt io n, an d p os th um ou sl y rece iv ed di sa bi li ty ben efi ts

. Defen da nt s

-1 0-co nt en d th at th is ev id en ce is “ br oa dl y rel ev an t” to th e am ou nt of da m ag es fo r lo ss of

co ns or ti um an d wro ng fu l de at h. Howev er, Defen da nt s m ak e n o a tt em pt to co un te r

th e di st ric t co ur t’s reas on s fo r ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce— th at it is cu m ul at iv e, un fai rly

pr ejud ic ia l, an d ha s th e po te nt ia l to m is le ad th e jury. Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3

al lo ws t he di st ric t co ur t t o e xc lu de rel ev an t ev id en ce fo r th es e rea so ns . Thu s, ev en
if we ag ree wi th Defen da nt s t ha t t he ev id en ce i s rele va nt

, Defen da nt s m us t p ro vi de

a reas on why th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce un de r

Ru le 40 3. The y do no t pr ov id e an y su ch reas on , an d, acco rd in gl y , we ha ve no ba si s

to di st ur b th e di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s

. S e e Fed

. R. App

. P. 28 (a)( 8) (A)
(s ta ti ng th at an ap pe ll an t’s br ie f m us t co nta in “ ap pe lla

nt’ s co nt en ti on s an d th e reas on s

fo r th em , wit h ci ta ti on s to th e au th or it ie s an d pa rts of th e reco rd o n w h i c h th e

ap pe ll an t rel ie s” ); Uni te d St at es v. Msh ih ir i

, 81 6 F.3 d 99 7, 10 09 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )
(ci ti ng Fed . R . Ap p. P. 28 (a)( 8) (A) an d fin di ng th at a pa rty wai ve d an arg um en t by

fai li ng to m ean in gf

ul ly argu e it ).

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-