Beaumont v. Robinson, 83-264

• Decision Date: 09 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-264,83-264
• Citation: 282 Ark. 181,668 S.W.2d 514
• Parties: William E. BEAUMONT, Jr. and Jo Growcock, Appellants, v. Tommy ROBINSON et al, Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 514

668 S.W.2d 514

282 Ark. 181

William E. BEAUMONT, Jr. and Jo Growcock, Appellants, v. Tommy ROBINSON et al, Appellees.

No. 83-264.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 9, 1984.

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of

Rehearing May 21, 1984.

House, Wallace & Jewell, P.A. by David M. Hargis, Little Rock, for appellants.

Hilburn, Calhoon, Forster, Harper & Pruniski, Ltd. by Phil Campbell and Robert L. Roddey, North Little Rock, for Robinson, Bowman, Zoeller and Evans.

Tom Forest Lovett, P.A. by James Mel Sayes, Little Rock, for Pulaski County.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

On March 22, 1982, William E. Beaumont, Jr., the county judge of Pulaski County, was arrested at his office in the county courthouse by the county sheriff, Tommy Robinson, and a deputy sheriff, Mark Bowman, was handcuffed, and was taken to the county jail, where he was booked on charges of obstructing governmental operations and resisting arrest. A few minutes later Judge Beaumont's assistant, Jo Growcock, the county comptroller, was arrested by deputy sheriffs Nick Zoeller and Dennis Evans, handcuffed, and taken to jail, where she was charged with obstructing governmental operations. Both Beaumont and Mrs. Growcock were released on their own recognizance after having been booked. On April 16 they were tried in municipal court upon the charges against them and were acquitted.

Judge Beaumont and Mrs. Growcock then brought this action against the sheriff, the three deputies, and the county itself, seeking compensatory and punitive damages on the ground that the plaintiffs' civil rights had been violated by the defendants acting under color of law, contrary to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1981). The county was joined as a defendant on the allegation that Robinson was its chief law enforcement officer, so that his acts represented the county's official policy.

The jury, after hearing about 40 witnesses, was able to reach a decision as to some of the asserted causes of action but not as to all. Specifically, the jury found that Zoeller, Evans, and Pulaski County were not liable to either plaintiff. Mrs. Growcock had taken a nonsuit as to Bowman. The jury found that Beaumont was not entitled to punitive damages against Robinson or Bowman and that Mrs. Growcock was not entitled to punitive damages against Robinson. The jury was unable to decide whether compensatory damages should be awarded to Beaumont against Robinson, to Beaumont against Bowman, or to Mrs. Growcock against Robinson.

The trial court entered judgment dismissing with prejudice all the causes of action finally determined by the jury. The court declared a mistrial as to the undetermined causes of action for compensatory damages. The two plaintiffs have appealed. They argue, first, that owing to the incomplete verdicts there should be a new trial as to all defendants upon all the issues, and second, that various asserted errors in the trial also entitle them to a new trial.

The plaintiffs' proof tended to show that the sheriff and his deputies were in the wrong in making the arrests. There was evidence that Sheriff Robinson had repeatedly overspent his budget as fixed by the quorum court. Federal Judge George Howard had found conditions at the county jail to be below constitutional standards and had appointed Kenneth Basinger as a special master to supervise the operation of the jail. Four days before the plaintiffs were arrested, Robinson had evicted Basinger from the jail, told him not to return, and expressed his own intention not to obey the orders of the federal court. When the sheriff and the deputy sheriffs came to the courthouse on March 22, they demanded that their purchase requisitions (requests for money from the county) be processed at once. They were told that Basinger would have to approve the requests. The evidence was in conflict about whether Beaumont resisted arrest, but the plaintiffs' theory was essentially that when they refused to honor the requests for funds they were wrongfully arrested for obstructing governmental operations. After the plaintiffs had been arrested and released they went to the federal court, where Robinson was held to be in contempt of court and put in jail.

The appellants first insist that they are entitled to a new trial as to all parties and all issues, because the verdicts were incomplete. Absent other reversible error, this argument cannot be sustained. The judge properly instructed the jury, in the language of AMI 105 and 106, that the plaintiffs' claims should be treated as separate suits and that each defendant's case was to be decided separately as if each were a separate suit. AMI Civil 2d (1974). Hence, subject to the possibility of error prejudicial to the appellants, the jury has settled the issues as between the plaintiffs and three of the defendants, Zoeller, Evans, and the county.

The appellants are right, however, in contending that they are entitled to a new trial with respect to both compensatory and punitive damages as against Robinson and Bowman, despite the jury's verdicts in favor of those defendants as to punitive damages. Each plaintiff has essentially only one cause of action against each defendant, even though that cause of action may embrace both compensatory and punitive damages. See, by analogy, St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. v. Hix, 101 Ark. 90, 141 S.W. 492 (1911). Hence the general rule, that a partial verdict as between two adverse parties cannot stand, is controlling. Martin v. Romes, 249 Ark. 927, 462 S.W.2d 460 (1971). The trial court's entry of judgment upon the partial verdicts must be reversed.

Second, the proffered testimony of Dr. Venus that had Robinson made adjustments in his expenditures in 1981 there would have been no need for the layoff of deputies in that year, was properly excluded. We fail to see how that earlier incident would have shown malice on Robinson's part in making the arrests, and in other respects the proffered testimony dealt with matters of law, such as Robinson's authority to set a policy for the county.

Third, we agree with appellants' argument that a deputy prosecuting attorney should not have been permitted to testify on a point of law: whether there was probable cause for the plaintiffs' arrest when the municipal court charges were tried. The only objection, however, was that it was unfair to ask the witness for an opinion without presenting all the facts to her. That objection did not raise the point now argued; so...