2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-14-2005

Whichard v. Bayloy

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-3210

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Whichard v. Bayloy" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 408.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/408
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 04-3210

________________

MAURICE KING WHICHARD

 v.

K. BAYLOY; COOPER; CLIFFORD COOPER; KENWIN BAYLOR

 Maurice Whichard,

 Appellant

__________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 01-CV-00148)

District Judge: Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman

_______________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 12, 2005

Before: VAN ANTWERPEN, GREENBERG and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 14, 2005)

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM
 At the time the parties filed their initial briefs, no trial transcript had been prepared. 

1

Subsequently, the District Court granted Whichard’s motion for transcripts and transcripts

were prepared. We then gave the parties 21 days to file supplemental briefs. The

appellees filed a supplemental brief, but Whichard did not.

2

Maurice King Whichard commenced this civil rights action by filing a pro se

complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in

which he alleged that he was punched, kicked and sprayed with pepper spray by prison

guards while he was being held as a pretrial detainee at Curran Fromhold Correctional

Facility. The District Court later appointed counsel, and the matter proceeded to trial

against two defendants on claims of excessive force, civil conspiracy, retaliation, assault

and battery, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The

jury completed a verdict sheet in favor of defendants on all claims, except that it found

that Correctional Officer Kenwin Baylor had committed assault and battery against

Whichard. The jury form indicates that it found that Whichard suffered damages as a

result of the assault and battery. In answer to question 4(b) on the form asking “what is

the amount of money, if any, which will compensate Plaintiff for damages suffered as a

result of the assault?,” the jury wrote “$0.” Whichard’s trial counsel filed a timely notice

of appeal and withdrew his appearance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. 

On appeal, Whichard raises one claim: that he was not awarded compensatory

damages, damages for pain and suffering, nominal damages or punitive damages. In their

supplemental brief, appellees argue that this Court should affirm the District Court’s 1
 While Whichard also experienced burning eyes due to the pepper spray, the jury did 2

not find any liability for use of the pepper spray; thus no damages resulting from its use

are at issue.

 The jury also may have believed that Whichard’s injuries were due to such force that 3

Baylor used justifiably to enforce prison regulations or protect himself or others.

3

entry of judgment in accordance with the jury verdict awarding Whichard zero damages,

because of the minimal injuries Whichard suffered as a result of Officer Baylor’s assault

and battery.

Under Pennsylvania law, which governs the assault and battery claim, the

determination of whether any pain suffered by a plaintiff is compensable is generally to

be left for the jury. Van Kirk v. O’Toole, 857 A.2d 183, 186 (Pa. Super. 2004). “The test

of whether a zero verdict can be upheld [is] whether the uncontroverted injuries are such

that a conclusion that they are so minor that no compensation is warranted defies common

sense and logic.” Id. at 185. The evidence here showed that Whichard received only a

minor or superficial laceration with minor bleeding. The only treatment required for the 2

laceration was a steri-strip. The jury may have believed that any of Whichard’s injuries

that were caused by Baylor’s assault and battery were so minor as to be “a transient rub of

life and living,” and thus not compensable. See Boggavarapu v. E. Suburban Health 3

Ctr., 542 A.2d 516, 518 (1988). See First Union Commercial Corp. v. GATX Capital

Corp., 411 F.3d 551, 556 (4 Cir. 2005) (jury’s damage award not reviewable “unless

th

unconscionable or motivated by extreme prejudice.”). We will therefore affirm the

District Court’s judgment.