Opinion ID: 2516126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Charge and Verdict

Text: Upon the close of evidence, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50. The district court reserved decision and proceeded to charge the jury. With respect to the § 1983 claim, the district court instructed that defendants could not be held liable for constitutional violations by Deputy Hamilton merely because he was a County employee. Rather, to establish municipal liability, Cash had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of Marchon Hamilton ... [were] the result of an official policy, practice or custom. Trial Tr. at 1009. The court explained that such a policy, practice, or custom did not have to be in writing or formally adopted. The court stated that Sheriff Gallivan was the relevant County policymaker with respect to ECHC, a point conceded by defendants. The district court instructed that a policy could be found if the evidence showed a failure to supervise their subordinates amounting to deliberate indifference to the rights of those who came in contact with municipal employees. Id. at 1010. Mere negligence was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. Id. Rather, deliberate indifference required a showing that Gallivan knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the plaintiff's health and safety. Id. With respect to causation, the court instructed that Cash must prove that defendants' actions or inaction were the proximate cause of her injury, i.e., that they were a substantial factor in bringing about [her] injury and that such injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendants' conduct. Id. at 1011. A special verdict form asked the jury sequentially to consider three questions relevant to the § 1983 claim: (1) Did Marchon Hamilton violate Vikki Cash's right to personal security guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution on December 17, 2002?; if so, (2) Was the violation of her constitutional rights proximately caused by a custom, policy, or practice of the County of Erie?; and, if so, (3) Did Vikki Cash suffer injury as a result of the violation of her constitutional rights? Special Verdict Form at 1-2. As to the negligence claim, the verdict form asked: (4) Was former Sheriff Patrick Gallivan negligent?; and, if so, (5) Did Vikki Cash suffer injury that was proximately caused by former Sheriff Patrick Gallivan's negligence? Id. at 2-3. Finally, if the jury found in favor of Cash on either the federal or state claim, the verdict form required the jury to [s]tate the amount of damages that you award to compensate Vikki Cash for [her] injury from December 17, 2002, the date of the incident, through today. Id. at 3. On September 26, 2008, the jury answered all three questions pertaining to the § 1983 claim in the affirmative, but found that Sheriff Gallivan was not negligent. See Trial Tr. at 1032-33. The jury awarded Cash $500,000 in compensatory damages. See id. at 1034.