Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Rights – Damages

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 2, 2012//

Civil Rights – Damages

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 2, 2012//

Listen to this article

Where the only issue at trial was damages, the district court erred by allowing to defendants to argue liability, and giving an instruction on nominal damages.

“We agree that defense counsel put liability in issue and hold that the defense’s theory and evidence, coupled with the liability instruction, likely confused the jury by converting this
damages-only trial into one about liability. The jury was consistently asked to assess whether the defendants’ personal conduct (Bonnstetter in leading the entry team and supervising the
search, and Rojas in serving guard duty) caused Guzman’s injuries. But the question should have been whether Guzman’s injuries were proximately caused by the unlawful search and seizure.
See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 264 (1978) (‘[T]he basic purpose of a § 1983 damages award should be to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional
rights.’); Herzog v. Vill. of Winnetka, 309 F.3d 1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2002) (‘[W]hen an illegal arrest sets off a chain of indignities . . . [the victim] is entitled to obtain damages for
these indignities . . . [f]or they are foreseeable consequences of the illegal arrest, and the ordinary rules of tort causation apply to constitutional tort suits.’). And, contrary to the
defendants’ contention, we cannot say the remaining jury instructions somehow operated to cure this defect. Indeed, the other instructions might have compounded the problem
by requiring the jury to only award damages for the harm that Guzman proved was ‘a direct result of the Defendants’ actions’ and defining ‘Defendants’ as Sergeant Bonnstetter and Officer
Rojas. Therefore, we hold that the district court’s decision to instruct the jury on liability in this damages-only trial was both erroneous and prejudicial. Guzman is entitled to a new
trial. See, e.g., Happel v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 602 F.3d 820, 828 (7th Cir. 2010) (remanding for a new trial in light of prejudicial verdict form and instructions).”

Reversed and Remanded.

10-1858 Guzman v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Manning, J., Williams, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests