Christy v. City of Baton Rouge
| Decision Date | 23 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 9481,9481 |
| Citation | 282 So.2d 724 |
| Parties | Religh C. CHRISTY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
John R. Sheppard, Asst. City Parish Atty., Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
H. A. Brumfield, III, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SARTAIN, BLANCHE and WATSON, JJ.
Plaintiff, Religh C. Christy, instituted this suit against the City of Baton Rouge for damages for personal injuries sustained by him as the result of an incident which occurred on September 4, 1967, at the Vel Rose Motel in the City of Baton Rouge. Judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff awarding him general damages in the amount of $12,000.00, damages for loss of wages in the amount of $1,6000.00, and special medical damages in the amount of $1,651.12. From this judgment the City of Baton Rouge has appealed and plaintiff has answered the appeal seeking an increase in the damage awards. We amend and affirm.
The facts show that on September 4, 1967, Sergeant Abrom Hoover, a Baton Rouge City Police officer, was working extra duty at Hopper's Drive In Restaurant which is located on Airline Highway across the street from the Vel Rose Motel. Between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. Sergeant Hoover was summoned by someone at the motel to come over because there had been a shooting on the premises. Sergeant Hoover left Hopper's Drive In and proceeded across the street to the motel. When he arrived Sergeant Hoover saw several persons scuffling in the motel driveway, which separates the motel office from the Vel Rose Motel bar and lounge. As he approached the group Sergeant Hoover witnessed Lloyd Ingles strike a Mr. Porche in the mouth with his fist. Sergeant Hoover moved the entire group of men, estimated as being less than a dozen in number, into the motel office where the man who had been shot, a Mr. Joseph Edward Nichols, had already been taken. Sergeant Hoover testified that Ingles continued to act in a belligerent manner and wanted to continue to fight. Sergeant Hoover stated that he had to physically push Ingles into a chair at least twice to keep him down while in the motel office.
Once he had taken the whole group into the motel office Sergeant Hoover summoned plaintiff, with whom he was acquainted, from Hopper's to come over to the motel and assist him in keeping order until more officers could be summoned to investigate the shooting. When plaintiff came into the office Hoover gave him his 'night stick', deputized him, and told him to keep the group in the office by force if necessary. Plainitff stood in the office door while Sergeant Hoover looked after the injured man. Plaintiff stated that during this period Ingles was continually belligerent and wanted to resume his fight with Porche.
Soon additional police officers, at least four in number, arrived on the scene. Plaintiff went outside and found the gun that had been used in the shooting in some bushes. He came back inside and gave the gun to Sergeant Hoover. At this point Ingles told plaintiff that he would 'get him' for finding the gun. Shortly thereafter, as the police were preparing to take the group downtown to continue the investigation, Ingles walked up to plaintiff, who was talking to one of the police officers, and struck him in the face. Plaintiff sustained two fractures of his nose and displacement of his front teeth as a result of this blow. It was only after plaintiff was struck that Ingles was subdued and handcuffed. Ingles was then taken downtown and booked on charges of simple battery and resisting arrest.
Sergeant Hoover testified that when the group was taken into the motel office he considered Ingles to be in custody and under arrest on a charge of simple battery for striking Porche. Hoover stated that because of Ingles' repeated attempts to get up and continue fighting while in the motel office he also was charged with resisting arrest. Hoover at no time placed handcuffs on Ingles even though he was carrying handcuffs on his uniform at the time.
Ingles was described as a big man who probably weighed over two hundred pounds. Several of the officers, including Sergeant Hoover, testified that they knew Ingles by reputation and that he had a long history of trouble with the law.
After receiving proper legislative authority, plaintiff filed suit against the City of Baton Rouge on October 16, 1968. Following a trial on the merits the district court rendered judgment holding defendant liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff on the grounds that the police officers were negligent in failing to subdue and handcuff Ingles when he was taken into custody prior to his attack upon plaintiff.
On appeal defendant contends that the trial court erred in holding the City liable for the failure of the police officers to subdue and handcuff Ingles and argues that the only person responsible for plaintiff's injuries is Ingles.
In view of the circumstances surrounding this incident we find that the trial court was not in error in holding that the police officers were negligent in not properly restraining Ingles.
The circumstances that impress us can be summarized as follows:
First, Sergeant Hoover and Officer John Dozier both indicated in their testimony that it is normal police procedure to handcuff suspects when they are arrested. Ingles was not handcuffed until after he struck plaintiff even though Sergeant Hoover stated that he had seen Ingles commit a battery upon the person of Mr. Porche and intended to charge him with that offense.
Second, when Sergeant Hoover arrived at the motel he saw Ingles strike Mr. Porche and throughout his confinement in the motel office Ingles acted in a threathening manner.
Third, during the confinement in the motel office Sergeant Hoover had to physically push Ingles into a chair on at least two occasions and on this basis Sergeant Hoover charged Ingles with resisting arrest.
Fourth, during the period of time plaintiff was guarding the doorway of the office Ingles repeatedly called plaintiff a 'punk' for aiding Sergeant Hoover.
Finally, when the gun was retrieved Ingles boisterously threatened plaintiff that he would 'get him' for finding the gun.
It has been stated that negligent conduct is conduct which creates an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to others. Eubanks v. Gore, 269 So.2d 258 (3rd La.App.1972). It has also been held that the failure to take a particular precaution to guard against injury to another in connection with a risk constitutes negligence when it appears that such precaution would have been undertaken by a reasonably prudent individual under the circumstances. Pitre v. Employers Liability Assurance Corportion, 234 So.2d 847 (1st La.App.1970). Of course, negligent conduct can only be determined in the light of the facts and circumstances presented in each particular case.
We find that in the case at bar the actions and words of Ingles throughout the period of time he was in custody in the motel should have indicated to Officer Hoover and the other officers present that he was dangerous and their failure to properly subdue and restrain him was negligent conduct which resulted in plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, we agree that the finding of negligence by the trial court under the circumstances presented is not erroneous.
We now turn to the question of damages. Defendant seeks a reduction of the awards made for general damages, special medical damages, and lost wages. Plaintiff, by answer to defendant's appeal, seeks an increase in the awards by the trial court for general damages and lost wages.
Our review of the record discloses that following the incident plaintiff was taken to the emergency room of the Baton Rouge General Hospital. He was seen by Dr. C. A. Meng. X-rays were made and revealed a fracture of the distal portion of the nasal bones, a fracture of the left infraorbital ridge with extension of the maxillary sinus and involvement of the left zygoma at its junction with the maxillary bone, and also a fracture of his front teeth.
Dr. Meng referred plaintiff to Dr. R. J. Coe, an otolaryngologist. On September 13, 1967, Dr. Coe performed restorative surgery on plaintiff's nose in order to restore the normal nasal contour. Plaintiff was hospitalized for four days in Our Lady of The Lake Hospital for this surgery. Plaintiff testified he was off work for three weeks to a month following this surgery.
Plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. District of Columbia
...219 N.E.2d 147 (1966) (liability upheld where police failed to protect witness summoned to make identification); Christy v. City of Baton Rouge, 282 So.2d 724 (La.App.1973) (liability for failure to protect citizen assisting in The theory of these decisions stems in part from a concern that......
-
Schwamb v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
...v. Tenneco Oil Co., 436 So.2d 729, 735 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 440 So.2d 759 (La.1983). Compare Christy v. City of Baton Rouge, 282 So.2d 724, 729 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 284 So.2d 776 (La.1973) (which did not discuss R.S. Loss of Anticipated Profits Schwamb contends that ......
-
Green v. State Through Southwest Louisiana Charity Hospital
...evidence and a finding in this regard will not be overturned unless manifest error appears in the record. Christy v. City of Baton Rouge, 282 So.2d 724 (La.App.1st Cir. 1973), writ refused 284 So.2d 776 (La.1973); State Through Dept. of Highways v. Menefee, 266 So.2d 226 (La.App.2nd Cir. 19......
-
Hines v. District of Columbia
...in nature from situations in which a citizen is persuaded to be of "active use" in police work. See, e.g., Christy v. City of Baton Rouge, 282 So.2d 724 (La.App.1973) (liability found for police failure to protect citizen who assisted in arrest). The exception for increased risks to citizen......