City of Evansville v. Cook
Decision Date | 17 December 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 1--374A50,1--374A50 |
Citation | 319 N.E.2d 874,162 Ind.App. 465 |
Parties | CITY OF EVANSVILLE, Indiana, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Steven R. COOK, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Cox Schroeder, Dodd, Staser & Mitchell, John C. Cox and Timothy R. Dodd, Evansville, for appellant.
Donald R. Ewers of Bates, Ewers & Davis, Evansville, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant City of Evansville (City) appeals from a jury verdict awarding plaintiff-appellee Cook damages in the sum of $4,250 on his complaint for unlawful arrest and detention. The following issues are presented for review:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in giving an instruction which defined unlawful arrest without making reference to the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest based upon probable cause.
(2) Whether it was error to give an instruction which discussed malice.
(3) Whether it was error to use a form of verdict which did not distinguish between compensatory and exemplary damages.
(4) Whether the damages awarded were excessive.
Sometime prior to January 31, 1973, Cook purchased twelve travelers checks with a face value of $100 each from a bank in Washington, Indiana. On January 31, 1973, Cook used one of these checks as payment for a coat purchased from Gilbert's Men and Boys Wear Store in Evansville. After accepting the check Gilbert's presented it to bank in Evansville for payment. However, it was not honored by the bank due to the fact that prior to making the purchase, Cook had inadvertently exposed the check to water thereby causing the ward 'VOID' to appear in two places across the top of the check.
After payment was refused, the manager of Gilbert's notified the Evansville Police Department that Cook had passed a fraudulent travelers check. The Evansville police investigated, as did the FBI.
Thereafter, on February 5, 1973, Cook returned to Gilbert's to purchase a sport coat which was on sale. While he was examining it, two police officers approached and informed him that he had either stolen or forged some travelers checks and that he was under arrest. They informed Cook of his constitutional rights, stood him against the wall, ordered him to raise his hands above his head, and conducted a pat down search. Cook was ordered to sit in a chair facing the officers and not to get up. He was kept under guard by the city police officers for 35--40 minutes until an FBI agent arrived. During the next hour and a half, while Cook was being held in the store, he continually attempted to explain to the officers that they were mistaken. Finally, an employee of the Evansville bank arrived and convinced the officers of their error. Cook was released amid the officers' apologies.
ISSUE I.
At trial, the following instruction defining unlawful arrest was given:
Members of the jury, you are instructed that false imprisonment is an unlawful restraint upon one's freedom of locomotion or action, or the deprivation of the liberty of another without his consent.
'False imprisonment is the unlawful arrest or detention of a person without warrant, or on a warrant illegally executed, and the placing of that person either in a prison or a place used temporarily for that purpose, or otherwise detaining a person by force and constraint without confinement.
'It is not necessary that the person unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned be placed in a prison or jail, but the false imprisonment may take place by merely unlawfully restraining one's freedom of action.'
City maintains that this instruction is erroneous in that it fails to explain that a warrantless arrest is not unlawful if based upon probable cause.
This argument overlooks the fact that the trial court gave another instruction concerning probable cause:
The term 'probable cause' means that an apparent state of facts existed, which, upon reasonable inquiry, would have induced a reasonable, prudent person to believe that the plaintiff committed the act which was the basis of the plaintiff's detention at Gilbert's Mens Store.
'If you find by preponderance of the evidence that the police officers had probable cause to detain the plaintiff, this finding would constitute a complete defense to this lawsuit for false arrest, and you should find for the defendant and against the plaintiff.'
In determining whether an instruction is erroneous it must be viewed together with all other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Occhino v. U.S.
...Cundiff, 2 Kan.App.2d 406, 580 P.2d 893 (1978) ($15,000.00 for false arrest and two-hour detention in jail); City of Evansville v. Cook, 162 Ind.App. 465, 319 N.E.2d 874 (1974) ($4,250.00 for detention in store for two hours); Nelson v. R. H. Macy & Co., 434 S.W.2d 767 (Mo.App.1968) ($2,500......
-
Old Town Development Co. v. Langford
...the years in such cases as, Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis (1969), 145 Ind.App. 159, 250 N.E.2d 378; City of Evansville v. Cook (1974), Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 874; Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. v. McCarrell (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 844, 855; New York Central Railroad Co.......
-
St. John v. U.S.
...Cundiff, 580 P.2d 893 (Kan. 1978) (awarding the plaintiff $15,000 for false arrest and a two-hour detention in jail); City of Evansville v. Cook, 319 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. 1974) (awarding the plaintiff $4,250 for a two-hour detention in a store); and Nelson v. R.H. Massey & Co., 434 S.W.2d 767 (......
-
Stock v. State
... ... call at her place of employment informing her that her house which was located in the City of Indianapolis had been broken into. Miss Grim proceeded to her home and found that the glass ... ...