Opinion
Case No. 4:06CV01376 ERW.
June 16, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial [doc. #131].
I. BACKGROUND
Kelvin Dobbs ("Dobbs") was arrested by Hugh Ross on October 28, 2005. When Dobbs arrived at the Pagedale Jail, he was placed in the holding cell he was wearing his street clothes, including hat, belt, shoes and shoelaces. Dobbs committed suicide that night, using his belt to hang himself.
Kelvin Coleman filed this action individually and as plaintiff ad litem for Kelvin Dobbs, and Pamela Dobbs-Coleman and D.B. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") later joined this action. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the City of Pagedale, the Pagedale Police Department, Hugh Ross, and Herschell Turner violated Dobbs' constitutional rights during his confinement at the Pagedale Jail, and they also sought recovery under the Missouri state law theories of wrongful death and lost chance of recovery.
Kelvin Coleman and Pamela Dobbs-Coleman are the biological parents of Kelvin Dobbs. D.B. is a minor, and the biological son of Kelvin Dobbs.
Plaintiffs originally named the Pagedale Police Department as a defendant in this suit, however, Plaintiffs' claims against the Pagedale Police Department were dismissed in an Order dated May 15, 2007 as the Pagedale Police Department is not a legal entity and not a suitable defendant.
Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Pagedale, Hugh Ross, and Herschell Turner (collectively, "Defendants") continued, however, summary judgment was granted on Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Pagedale, and it was also granted on Plaintiffs' claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Hugh Ross and Herschell Turner.
Plaintiff's claims against Hugh Ross and Herschell Turner for wrongful death, lost chance of recovery, and deliberate indifference to a known risk of suicide survived summary judgment. During the trial, Defendants moved for a directed verdict on Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful death and lost chance of recovery. The Court granted Defendants' Motion. The trial concluded on February 13, 2008, and the jury found in favor of Defendants Hugh Ross and Herschell Turner on Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to a known risk of suicide.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
III. DISCUSSION
59Gray v. Bicknell,86 F.3d 14721480Leichihman v. Pickwick Intern.,814 F.2d 12631267McKnight v. Johnson Controls, 36 F.3d 13961400
The Court begins by noting that Plaintiffs' third argument fails. Plaintiffs note in their Memorandum in Support, and the Court agrees, that the Court granted judgment on Plaintiffs' wrongful death claim on the basis of suicide being an intervening act. Whether a negligence standard or deliberate indifference standard would have been appropriate for this claim was not considered by the Court in making the challenged ruling. As this was not the basis for the Court's decision, Plaintiffs' argument does not establish a legal error requiring a new trial. Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996).
A. SUICIDE AS AN INTERVENING ACT
The first two grounds for Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial all relate to the Court's decision to grant Defendants' Motion for Directed Verdict on Plaintiffs' claim for wrongful death, and will be considered together. The Court determined that under Missouri law, a voluntary suicide "is considered a new and independent intervening act which breaks the causal connection between the allegedly negligent act and the death." Eidson v. Reproductive Health Services, 863 S.W.2d 621, 627 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993). As a result, a plaintiff is unable to recover unless they are able to prove that:
defendant's allegedly negligent act caused decedent to become insane in the sense that 1) the insanity prevents the injured party from understanding what he or she is doing or from understanding its inevitable or probable consequences or 2) the injured party's act is done under an insane impulse which is irresistible because the insanity has prevented his or her reason from controlling his or her actions.Id. at 627; see also Beer v. Upjohn, 943 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.Ct.App. 1997); Neurological Medicine, Inc. v. General American Life Insurance Co., 921 S.W.2d 64 (Mo.Ct.App. 1996).
Plaintiffs assert that this well established requirement does not apply to their claims, citing the duty owed by Defendant Ross and Defendant Turner to Dobbs. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs rely upon several court opinions from other states. See, e.g., Taylor v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 423 F.Supp.2d 882, 898 (E.D. Wis. 2006); Epelbaum v. Elf Atochem, North America, Inc., 40 F.Supp.2d 429 (E.D. Ky. 1999). Plaintiffs are correct that some states will uphold a negligence action such as this, however, no Missouri case has ever upheld a negligence action against police officers when an inmate or detainee has committed suicide. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Court's decision to grant a directed verdict on their wrongful death claim was a legal error, and a new trial is not necessary "to avoid a miscarriage of justice." Gray, 86 F.3d at 1480; McKnight, 36 F.3d at 1400.
B. CITY OF PAGEDALE
Plaintiff's final ground for this Motion is that the Court erred in granting summary judgment on their claim against the City of Pagedale. The Court considered Plaintiffs' arguments on summary judgment, and in the Motion to Reconsider filed by Plaintiffs. Today, the Court again finds that summary judgment was appropriate.
For a city to be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that their injury resulted from "either an official municipal policy or a widespread custom or practice that caused the plaintiff's injury." Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998). Evidence "of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability." Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 828 (8th Cir. 2007). Rather, the practice must be "permanent and well-settled." Davison v. City of Minneapolis, Minn, 490 F.3d 648, 659 (8th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff's did not introduce sufficient evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional misconduct or that officials were deliberately indifferent or tacitly authorized the violation of General Order 9-28. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to indicate any "need for more or different training." Ambrose v. Young, 474 F.3d 1070, 1079-80 (8th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment was proper on Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Pagedale.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial [doc. #131] is DENIED.