By: Derek Hawkins//June 28, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Jacob Saathoff et al. v. Andre Davis
Case No.: 15-3415
Officials: FLAUM and MANION, Circuit Judges, and ALONSO, District Judge.*
Focus: 4th amendment Violation
Appellants reproduce evidence in their favor without addressing countervailing evidence and district courts analysis.
“When it ruled on plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, the district court applied the proper standard, citing Mejia, and reasoned as follows: At trial, this court had the opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of the witnesses who testified. During their testimony, all three Plaintiffs, by their body language and choice of words, showed that they were angry and believed that they were entitled to substantial damages for the loss of their dog. It appeared that Plaintiffs’ presentation of evidence was more focused on damages than liability. This court wants to be clear that Plaintiffs did present evidence from which a jury could have found in their favor. However, in contrast to the Plaintiffs, Defendant came across on the witness stand as a very reasonable person who came into a chaotic, emergency situation and did what he thought was best at the time. This court therefore concludes that the jury was presented with a legally sufficient amount of evidence from which the jury could reasonably derive its verdict in favor of Defendant. We find no fault with this assessment of the evidence at trial, which also showed that Davis had prior experience with pit bulls and knew they could be vicious. And the dog involved in this fight was indeed described as vicious. Davis offered plausible reasons for rejecting alternative courses of action, including the risk of danger to the bystanders. Plaintiffs are adamant that this risk was not “immediate,” but they fail to acknowledge that a vicious dog was involved and the situation thus could have changed at any moment.
Affirmed