Court sustains $190,000 damages award in prisoner excessive force case

Juries don't know that, after they enter a verdict and go home, the courts continue to analyze the case to determine if the jury made the right decision. In this case involving excessive force against a prisoner at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, the jury found that a correction officer was liable for $190,000 in damages for beating up the plaintiff and breaking his rib. The Court of Appeals sustains the verdict. 

The case is Tranchina v. McGrath, a summary order issued on December 8. Do you know how hard it is to overturn a jury verdict? The losing side has to show there is no evidence to support the verdict. The court, in reviewing the verdict, has to assume that the jury credited every piece of evidence that might have favored the winning side. The Court of Appeals is highly deferential to jury verdicts and does not overturn them cavalierly, even if the judges might have ruled for the losing party had they been the triers of fact. What makes cases like this more remarkable is that the jury believed the inmate over the correction officer. That is rare. 

Plaintiff deserved his verdict, the Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Livingston and Lynch) says, because Tranchina testified that McGrath “repeatedly punched [him] in the side of [the] head and [the] ribs” on his right side during an assault that lasted between one-and-a-half and three minutes. Tranchina also testified that McGrath alone struck the right side of Tranchina’s head and body. Another defendant “kicked [him] on the left cheekbone,” and Tranchina sustained further injuries when thrown into the back of a van. At trial, McGrath acknowledged that Tranchina’s rib injury resulted from the incident between Tranchina and McGrath. Tranchina also provided photographic evidence of his injuries, including photos depicting the right side of his face and his “right ear, . . . pretty badly cut, swollen and bruised,” as well as photographic evidence of McGrath’s bruised and bloodied knuckles. Medical records documented Tranchina’s broken right distal rib. The bottom line is that the verdict was not based on conjecture or speculation; the verdict had an evidentiary basis.

What about the damages award? Courts often reduce damages award under the "shocks the conscience" theory of judicial review. Again, the jury does not know that their judgment will be second-guessed post-trial. The officer claims $190,000 is too much money for these injuries. While the officer says plaintiff should only get one dollar, the Court of Appeals agrees that plaintiff did not suffer minimal injuries and that this amount is legitimate.