Opinion ID: 1136091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: at the close of the plaintiff's evidence:

Text: DEFENSE COUNSEL NO. I: Your Honor, you ready for us to make our motion? I would move for a directed verdict on the part of Tom Wells, Thomas McGee, George Jones, and Roy Calvin on the basis that ... the plaintiff put [nothing] into evidence that there was any lack of supervision or training on their parts with regard to Trooper Breland. Under the Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff has to prove some lack of training or supervision that was the proximate cause of the injury that the individual suffered. And again, in this case, they have simply put no evidence to show any lack of training or supervision of Trooper Breland by any of the defendants who I have just named. As to their state law claims against these defendants, again, they would have to show that same thing, which they haven't. In addition, the defendants, under state law, enjoyed a substantive immunity from suit for discretionary functions. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Your Honor, we understand the motion. We don't agree, but with respect to the motion in limine that you [sic] filed and the proof we have made, we don't have any further argument with respect to the individual defendants other than Mr. Breland. THE COURT: Okay. DEFENSE COUNSEL NO. II: Likewise, your Honor, we would file the same motion for directed verdict on behalf of Mr. Breland simply on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to prove [his] cause of action. THE COURT: Okay. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Would you like me to address that, Your Honor? THE COURT: If you want to. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Your Honor, we basically are pursuing three claims against Mr. Breland. And the evidence yesterdayfirst, deprivation of civil rights. I think the evidence is clear [that] he shot the man under cover of law. We are maintaining a claim for negligent and wanton conduct of Mr. Breland in the shooting, and a direct assault and battery. Right now I think the evidence amply substantiates [that] all those things occurred and that the jury could easily find for the plaintiff on all the required elements of these causes of action based on the testimony that you have got here before you today. DEFENSE COUNSEL I: Your Honor, we would just add that, again, in order to establish cause of action [under §] 1983, you have to show some sort of history of misconduct on the part of the officer to put the defendants on notice for the need of improved supervision and training. And again, they submitted no such evidence in this case. THE COURT: Okay. Your motion is granted except as to the defendant Breland. (R. 90-92; emphasis added.)