Godfrey v. Iverson, Civil Action No. 05-2044 (ESH).
| Decision Date | 04 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 05-2044 (ESH). |
| Citation | 503 F.Supp.2d 363 |
| Parties | Marlin GODFREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Allen IVERSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Edward Gregory Watson, Stephanie Denae Moran, Watson & Moran, LLC, Landover, MD, Gregory L. Lattimer, Law Offices of Gregory L. Lattimer, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Alan C. Milstein, Matthew A. Tucker, Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, P.A., Pennsauken, NJ, William R. Martin, Thomas R. Bundy Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P., David A. Rosenberg, Ford & Harrison LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
This case was tried to a jury over six days in June and July 2007. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of a physical altercation that took place at the Eyebar nightclub in Washington, D.C. in July 2005. After approximately two and a half days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict against defendant Jason Kane for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery as to plaintiff Marlin Godfrey. The jury also returned a verdict for Godfrey against defendant Allen Iverson for the negligent supervision of Kane. Godfrey was awarded $260,000 in compensatory damages, including $10,000 for medical expenses and $250,000 for pain and suffering, but the jury declined to award punitive damages.
Defendants now move for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, arguing, inter alia, that the Court made a number of erroneous evidentiary rulings and improperly instructed the jury. Defendants have also moved in the alternative for remittitur, and they request that the juries award of damages, which they claim is excessive, be reduced to an amount not greater than $31,200.
Defendants argue that the evidence showed that plaintiff Godfrey's "only medical expenses included co-payments and drug store receipts totaling $1,200," and that the jury's award of $10,000 for medical expenses is therefore not supported by the record. (Defs.' Mot. for Remittitur at 4-5, 8.) In reaching their $1,200 figure, defendants appear to exclude the medical expenses for which Godfrey may have been reimbursed by his health insurance carrier. (See, e.g., Pl.'s Ex. 2a []; id. [].) However, it well established under the collateral source rule that "payments to the injured party from a collateral source are not allowed to diminish damages recoverable from the tortfeasor." Hardi v. Mezzanotte, 818 A.2d 974, 984 (D.C.2003). Because the medical bills in evidence, as to which defendants did not object at trial, support the jury's $10,000 award, the Court will not disturb their verdict. Furthermore, the jury's award of $250,000 for pain and suffering is not unreasonable in light of the evidence presented at trial regarding the seriousness of Godfrey's injuries, which included a ruptured ear drum, lacerations, a ruptured blood vessel in his eye, and a torn rotator cuff. Accordingly, defendants' motion for remittitur must be denied.
Defendants also argue that the Court failed to properly instruct the jury on the law of battery and negligent supervision. (Defs.' Mot. for New Trial at 14-15, 17.) Because defendants did not object to these portions of the instructions before the case went to the jury (see July 5, 2007 a.m. Tr. at 6:13-8:21), the Court may only consider whether its instructions constituted "plain error ... affecting substantial rights." Fed.R.Civ.P. 51(d). None of the contested instructions rise to this level. For example, the battery instruction that defendants now criticize (see Defs.' Mot. for New Trial at 15) was given essentially, verbatim from the District of Columbia's standard jury instructions, see STANDARDIZED CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA § 19.03 (2006), and defendants themselves requested that this very instruction be given.1 (See Joint Pretrial Statement [Dkt. # 68] Attachment 2 [Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions] at 8 ().) Defendants also argue that the Court erred with respect to the claim against Iverson for the negligent supervision of Kane by failing to instruct the jury on "the necessary element[s] of duty or causation." (Defs.' Mot. for New Trial at 17.) As a matter of law, a principal has a duty to supervise his agent with reasonable care once he knows or has reason to know that such a person has "behaved in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner." Ames v. Yellow Cab of D.C., Inc., Civ. No. 00-3116, 2006 WL 2711546, at *8, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67788, at *25 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2006); see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Law Offices of Snider & Assocs., LLC. v. Gates
...on DFAS's ability to respond to Snider's request if DFAS were provided with social security numbers. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Iverson, 503 F.Supp.2d 363, 366 n. 1 (D.D.C.2007), aff'd, 559 F.3d 569 (D.C.Cir.2009) (court need not address arguments based on conjectural ...
-
Broady v. Zanzibar On the Waterfront, LLC
...involving Jason Kane, the man identified by Iverson in his Affidavit as providing security for him during the summer of 2004. See 503 F.Supp.2d 363 (D.D.C.2007). The altercation at issue in the Godfrey case, however, occurred in July 2005, i.e., more than a year after Plaintiff was allegedl......
-
Law Offices of Snider & Assocs., LLC. v. Gates
...on DFAS's ability to respond to Snider's request if DFAS were provided with social security numbers. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Iverson, 503 F. Supp. 2d 363, 366 n.1 (D.D.C. 2007), aff'd, 559 F.3d 569 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (court need not address arguments based on conjectural ...
-
Godfrey v. Iverson
...for medical expenses. The district court upheld the verdict, rejecting the defendants' post-trial motions. See Godfrey v. Iverson, 503 F.Supp.2d 363, 366 (D.D.C.2007). Liability for negligent supervision arises when an "employer knew or should have known its employee behaved in a dangerous ......