Opinion ID: 456364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for a new trial on the issue of damages.

Text: 49 In considering whether the trial court erred in denying Hibma a new trial on the issue of damages, this Court notes that 50 a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, Durant v. Surety Homes Corp., 582 F.2d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir.1978), the standard of review is abuse of that discretion. The only question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the jury did not abuse its discretion. Galard v. Johnson, 504 F.2d 1198 at 1202 (7th Cir. Ind.1974). As our court pointed out in Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Wagner-Morehouse, Inc., 401 F.2d 23 (7th Cir.1968): 51 If the evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the successful party, is sufficient to support the jury verdict, a new trial is not warranted merely because the jury could have reached a different result. [Citing cases.] Neither the trial court nor this Court may substitute its judgment for that of the jury on disputed issues of fact. 52 Id. at 30 (quoting Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co., 348 F.2d 129, 133 (3rd Cir.1965)). 53 Robison v. Lescrenier, 721 F.2d 1101, 1104 (7th Cir.1983). Having reviewed the record in the instant case, this Court finds that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict and award of $166,500 as damages. Because the jury could have awarded more (or less) does not require that a new trial be granted. 54 Hibma also seeks a new trial based on the exclusion of evidence of the sexual assault at the Green Bay Reformatory and based on the special verdict questions submitted to the jury. 55
56 After the jury had determined that the deputies had violated Hibma's constitutional rights while acting in the scope of their employment, and before the damage phase of the trial, the trial court granted Sawyer County's motion in limine and excluded evidence of a sexual assault upon Hibma by prisoners at the Green Bay Reformatory. The trial court excluded the evidence because it found the evidence to be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial and because it did not believe that Sawyer County had opened the door to questioning on the subject. 57 The general principles of tort liability govern the liability imposed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Joseph v. Rowlen, 425 F.2d 1010, 1013 (7th Cir.1970); see also Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-58, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1049, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978), and they provide guidance in the instant case. 58 Causation constitutes a necessary element in all tort cases. To establish tort liability, the victim must show that the wrongful act of the tort-feasor caused his injury. See Schlanger v. Four-Phase Systems Inc., 555 F.Supp. 535, 538 (S.D.N.Y.1982); Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 430 (1965). To be a legal cause of harm to another, a tort-feasor's conduct must constitute a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 431. The word 'substantial' is used to denote the fact that the defendant's conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility, .... Id. comment a. 59 The recovery of damages in actions for false imprisonment includes recovery for physical and mental injury, ... as well as for physical discomfort in jail.... So long as a jury finds that the injury was the natural consequence of the false imprisonment and proximately related to it ... the tort-feasor's conduct constitutes a legal cause of the injury and the victim may recover. Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781, 797 (5th Cir.1969) (citations omitted). [T]he tort feasor (sic) in a false imprisonment action may be liable for damages which are not anticipated, apprehended or foreseen, so long as they are natural and probable or direct consequences of the intentional tort. Johnson v. Greer, 477 F.2d 101, 105 (5th Cir.1973). If the deputies' entrapment and resulting arrest and imprisonment of Hibma naturally or proximately caused his rape at the Green Bay Reformatory, their actions formed a legal cause of the rape and the trial court erred in excluding the evidence regarding it. 60 In assessing the propriety of the exclusion, this Court notes that a willful or intentional tort feasor (sic) does not become an insurer of the safety of those whom he has wronged. Id. at 106. While the intentional tort-feasor must exercise utmost caution to prevent his victim from sustaining further harm, even he remains insulated from injuries caused by wholly unforeseen accidents occurring without his agency. Id. at 107. Stated another way, 61 [a] person who commits a tort against another for the purpose of causing a particular harm to the other is liable for such harm if it results, whether or not it is expectable, except where the harm results from an outside force the risk of which is not increased by the defendant's act. 62 Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 435A (1965). [E]ven where the harm would not have occurred but for the tortious act, there is no liability if, although the resulting harm was of the same general nature as that intended, the defendant's act did not increase the risk of harm through the means by which it occurred. Id. comment a. Though this section of the Restatement (Second) considers the casual relationship between intentional torts and intended injuries, the principle logically applies where an unintended injury results from an intentional tort, Johnson, 477 F.2d at 107 (quoting Restatement of Torts Sec. 870 and comment g). 63 The intentional torts or criminal acts of a third person may constitute a superseding cause of harm and may relieve a tort-feasor from liability for the harm caused by the third person's torts or acts. This principle applies when the original tort-feasor's negligence creates an opportunity for the third person to commit an intentional tort or criminal act, Gillot v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 507 F.Supp. 454, 457 (D.D.C.1981), as well as when the original tort-feasor's intentional action creates the opportunity, see W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, Sec. 44 at 317-18 (5th ed. 1984); see generally Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 448 and comment a (1965). 64 Further, 65 [o]ne who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal power of self-protection or to subject him to association with persons likely to harm him, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control the conduct of third persons as to prevent them from intentionally harming the other or so conducting themselves as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to him, if the actor 66 (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control the conduct of the third persons, and 67 (b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. 68 Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 320 (1965). When the duty to prevent harm to a tort-feasor's victim shifts from the tort-feasor to a third party, the third party's failure to prevent harm to the victim may become a superseding cause and relieve the tort-feasor from liability. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 452 (1965). Comment f of Section 452 sets forth the factors that a court must consider in determining whether the duty has shifted: 69 the degree of danger and the magnitude of the risk of harm, the character and position of the third person who is to take the responsibility, his knowledge of the danger and the likelihood that he will or will not exercise proper care, his relation to the plaintiff or to the defendant, the lapse of time, and perhaps other considerations. 70 Id. comment f. Though Section 452 discusses shifting the duty of a negligent tort-feasor, the underlying principles and listed factors may give guidance to courts contemplating the liability of intentional tort-feasors. 71 The court has the exclusive function to declare the existence or non-existence of rules, such as those pertaining to superseding causes, which restrict the responsibility of a tort-feasor short of making him liable for harm of which his actions are a legal cause. Id. Sec. 453. If the facts are undisputed, the court has the duty to apply to them the rules determining the existence or extent of the tort-feasor's liability. However, if reasonable men could differ as to whether the torts or criminal acts of a third person were intentional or foreseeable, the court should leave the application of the rules to the jury. Id. comment b. 72 In the instant case, Sawyer County transferred custody of Hibma from the deputies to the Wisconsin Prison System. During Hibma's incarceration at the Green Bay Reformatory, the duty to protect Hibma shifted from the deputies to the Wisconsin Prison System. Restatement (Second) of Torts Secs. 320, 452 (1965). While Hibma was under the protection of the Wisconsin Prison System, other inmates sexually assaulted him. Though the deputies' actions set in motion the events which led to Hibma's confinement at the Green Bay Reformatory, the duty of protection assumed by the Wisconsin Prison System and the criminal acts of the other inmates formed superseding causes which prevent the deputies' actions from being a legal cause in bringing about the sexual assault. See W. Keeton, supra; Restatement (Second) of Torts Secs. 440, 441, 448, 452. Because these facts were undisputed and because reasonable men could not differ as to whether the sexual assault was an intentional act and as to whether the duty to protect Hibma had shifted to the Wisconsin Prison System, the trial court properly determined whether the evidence of the sexual assault should be considered by the jury. Finally, the trial court correctly held that the sexual assault evidence was irrelevant for the purpose of assessing Hibma's damages because, as set forth above, the deputies' actions were not a legal cause of the assault upon Hibma. 73
74 Finally, Hibma ought not be granted a new trial on the basis that the trial court submitted an improper special verdict form to the jury. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a), [t]he district court has considerable discretion as to the nature and scope of the issues to be submitted to the jury in the form of special verdict questions. Sadowski v. Bombardier Limited, 539 F.2d 615, 622 (7th Cir.1976) (citation omitted); see also Worsham v. A.H. Robins Company, 734 F.2d 676, 690 (11th Cir.1984); Central Progressive Bank v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 658 F.2d 377, 381 (5th Cir.1981). A reviewing court must limit its inquiry to whether the trial court abused its discretion. Central Progressive Bank, 658 F.2d at 381. Special verdict questions must pose the question presented by the case accurately and be stated in a fashion that 'avoids the potential for confusing or misleading the jury.'  Worsham, 734 F.2d at 690 (quoting Petes v. Hayes, 664 F.2d 523, 525 (5th Cir.1981)); see also Central Progressive Bank, 658 F.2d at 381. 75 After the liability portion of the instant case, the trial court, by means of special verdict questions, asked the jury whether any of the deputies had acted within the scope of their employment while depriving Hibma of his constitutional rights. After the damage portion of the trial, the trial court submitted special verdict questions which asked the jury to determine the amount of damages which the deputies proximately caused while acting within the scope of their employment and to determine the amount of damages proximately caused by the deputies while acting outside the scope of their employment. These questions accurately posed the question presented in the instant case and avoided the potential for confusing or misleading the jury. In effect, the trial court asked the jury to apply what it had found in the liability portion of the trial to the evidence which the jury heard in the damage portion. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting these special verdict questions. 76 Issue III. Whether 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 entitles Hibma to an award of all his attorney's fees and costs? 77 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 gives courts broad authority to award reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing parties in federal civil rights actions. Smith v. Robinson, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 3466, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984); Illinois Welfare Rights Organization v. Miller, 723 F.2d 564, 566 (7th Cir.1983). Section 1988 entrusts the determination of a fee award to the sound discretion of the district court because of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); In re Illinois Congressional Districts Reapportionment Cases, 704 F.2d 380, 382 (7th Cir.1983). However, the district court has only a narrow discretion and should deny fees only where an award would be unjust. Lenard v. Argento, 699 F.2d 874, 899 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 69, 78 L.Ed.2d 84 (1983). A reviewing court may set aside a trial court's fee determination only for an abuse of discretion. In re Illinois Congressional District Reapportionment Cases, 704 F.2d at 382; Freeman v. Franzen, 695 F.2d 485, 494 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 3553, 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983). The amount of the fee awarded turns on the facts of each case. Hensley, 103 S.Ct. at 1937. 78 In the instant case, Hibma initiated this section 1983 action against Nikodem, Szula and Odegaard. Sawyer County intervened in October 1982 because it was potentially liable to Hibma by way of indemnification under Wis.Stat.Ann. Sec. 895.46 (West Supp.1983). In August 1983, Nikodem and Szula stipulated to judgment being entered against them in an amount to be determined by the court. In determining the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to Hibma, the trial court reviewed the time records submitted by Hibma's counsel and allowed all fees that it determined to be attributable to Hibma's section 1983 action and disallowed all fees that it determined to be attributable to Hibma's action against Sawyer County under Wis.Stat. Sec. 895.46. In doing so, the trial court did not abuse the discretion afforded it under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. 79 Section 1988 applies to federal civil rights claims. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. The fact that a plaintiff makes a constitutional claim does not render automatic an award of fees for the entire proceeding. Smith, 104 S.Ct. at 3467. Due regard must be paid, not only to the fact that a plaintiff 'prevailed,' but also to the relationship between the claims on which effort was expended and the ultimate relief obtained. Id. at 3466 (citing Hensley, 103 S.Ct. 1933); see also Illinois Welfare Rights Organization v. Miller, 723 F.2d 564, 567 (7th Cir.1983). The ultimate relief obtained by Hibma in the instant action consisted of damages against the deputies under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Wis.Stat. Sec. 895.46 merely provided a means for Hibma to collect part of the award from Sawyer County. The Wisconsin statute neither enhanced nor diminished the award obtained under section 1983. Therefore, the trial judge properly disallowed all fees that it determined to be attributable to Hibma's pursuit of indemnification.