Opinion ID: 3063838
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instructions on Emotional Distress

Text: Barker and Access Now also submit that a new trial is warranted because the jury instructions on emotional distress were duplicative, lengthy, confusing, and violated public policy. They contend the instructions erroneously required the jurors to award emotional damages based on an exact measurement in the form of lost wages or medical bills. Additionally, Barker and Access Now contend the instructions should have stated that emotional damages could be awarded for embarrassment and humiliation. 12 We review jury instructions de novo for legal inaccuracies or misleading statements. See Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008). Under our deferential standard, we will not “nitpick the instructions for minor defects.” Id. Rather, we must view the challenged instructions in context of the entire charge, the allegations of the complaint, the evidence presented, and closing arguments. See id. Reversal requires “a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The challenged instructions here accurately reflected the law and did not mislead the jury. As an initial matter, the court did not instruct the jury that emotional distress damages required a specific measurement. To the contrary, the jury was advised that “there is no exact standard to be applied to determine an amount of compensatory damages.” R15-356, Exh. Vol. 49 at 1752. The district court then offered nine factors which the jury could consider in assessing whether Barker suffered emotional distress damages.1 We have previously acknowledged that these factors “aid triers of fact in determining the propriety of awarding 1 The listed factors stated in the trial court’s jury charge were: (1) whether Barker lost the esteem of her peers; (2) whether she suffered physical injury as a consequence of her emotional distress; (3) whether she received psychological counseling or other medical treatment; (4) whether she suffered a loss of income; (5) the degree of emotional distress; (6) the context of the events surrounding the emotional distress; (7) the evidence tending to corroborate her testimony; (8) the nexus between the challenged conduct and the emotional distress; and (9) any mitigating circumstances. 13 compensatory damages for emotional distress.” Akouri v. State of Fla Dep’t of Transp., 408 F.3d 1338, 1345 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Marable v. Walker, 704 F.2d 1219, 1220 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that evidence of pecuniary loss, psychiatric disturbance, effect on social activity, or physical symptoms may pertain to the amount of emotional distress damages for a FHA violation). Although the instructions did not specifically mention humiliation or embarrassment, Barker testified that she experienced these feelings and her attorney raised these factors in his closing arguments. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the jury charge. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Barker and Access Now’s motion for a new trial.