City does not have to pay damages in police beating case

The euphoria of winning a trial might give way to a new problem: how do we enforce the judgment? Normally, when you prevail against a government employee (such as a police officer), enforcement is easy because the municipality usually pays out the damages award. It's when you sue a private entity that may be judgment-proof or even file for bankruptcy that the plaintiff has a pyrrhic victory. But sometimes, even when you prevail against a police officer, the municipality is not required to pay. That's what happened in this case.

The case is City of Hartford v. Edwards, issued on January 10. Edwards sued police officer Christopher May for excessive force. The jury awarded Edwards $135,000 in compensatory damages and $275,000 in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the punitives to $75,000, so the total judgment is $210,000.00. Of course, Edwards wants to get paid, but the City had different ideas, filing a motion in the district court for an order stating the city was not on the hook for the money because, under Connecticut law, the municipality is not liable for the damages award in a Section 1983 case if the officer acted "willfully or wantonly." The district court agreed with that argument in part, ruling the statute only protected the city from paying punitive damages, not compensatory damages. The Second Circuit (Wesley, Chin and Sullivan) says the city does not have to pay anything.

The Connecticut law says a municipality must cover a damages award "if such occurrence, accident, physical injury or damage was not the result of any wilful or wanton act of such employee in the discharge of such duty." Since the statute draws no distinction between compensatory or punitive damages, it means the city is off the hook for any damages that arose from wanton or wilful acts, including acts that violate the Constitution, such as police beatings. Since the jury awarded Edwards punitive damages, it necessarily found that May's unlawful acts were wilful or wanton. The Court of Appeals agrees with the district court that the city is not responsible for the punitive damages, but it also reverses the district court's holding that the city is responsible for the compensatory damages.

What it means for Edwards is that the judgment stands, but he must look to May for the money. May may or may not have the money. This is a potential problem for Edwards, since enforcing a judgment against someone who cannot afford it is always problematic. On the other hand, if May files for bankruptcy, that might not discharge the debt, since the punitive damages award means he acted intentionally and maliciously, and the bankruptcy code disallows the discharge of any debt under that circumstance.

One way around this problem, the Court of Appeals suggests, is for the plaintiff to decline to seek punitive damages. Since Edwards sought punitives, that "necessarily put the wilful or wanton nature of Officer May's actions at issue." Interesting: to ensure the plaintiff recovers for his meritorious lawsuit, he is better off not seeking punitive damages.