Jackson v. Crockarell
| Decision Date | 28 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1884.,72-1884. |
| Parties | Faye Baggett JACKSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Edwin Baggett, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles CROCKARELL et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Tyree B. Harris, Nashville, Tenn., James C. Cunningham, Clarksville, Tenn., Hooker, Keeble, Dodson & Harris, Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
R. Price Nimmo, Nashville, Tenn., Dale Quillen, Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for defendants-appellees.
Before WEICK, PECK and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, brought this action in the District Court against the Sheriff of Stewart County, Tennessee, his deputy and the sureties on his official bond, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to recover damages for his alleged wrongful killing by the Sheriff. The undisputed facts show that the deceased Edwin Baggett, while under the influence of alcohol or an unidentified drug, knocked on the door of a private home and asked to be admitted. The lady of the house refused to admit him, and he returned to his car which was parked by the curb. Ten minutes later, she sent her son next door to call the police and summon them to the scene. When the Sheriff arrived, he attempted to awaken Baggett and remove him from the car. An altercation ensued, and when the Sheriff became wedged between the automobile and its open door, he shot and killed Baggett.
The appellant brought this action in the District Court alleging that the Sheriff deprived her deceased husband of his rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was tried to a jury, which found for the Sheriff, and this appeal followed.
The appellant's single contention on this appeal is that the District Court instructed the jury on a theory of defense which was not set out in the answer of the defendant, or in the pre-trial order, and upon which no evidence was introduced. The answer of the defendant admitted that he shot the plaintiff's decedent, but alleged:
"that he drew his pistol and fired into the body of the said Edwin Baggett in order to protect his own life, after the said Baggett drew a large knife and cornered the defendant, Charles Crockarell, and put him in fear for his life, whereupon Charles Crockarell, in order to protect his own life, fired into the body of the said Edwin Baggett, who died a short time later."
Under the practice of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, a pre-trial order is entered in all civil cases setting forth the issues to be tried and the theories of the parties, and providing that all pleadings in the case are treated as being amended to comply with the pre-trial order. An order was entered in this case which set out, in accordance with the defendants' pleadings, the defense that the Sheriff shot the deceased in self-defense.
At trial, upon the conclusion of final argument of counsel for the parties, the District Judge began his instruction of the jury, but then interrupted his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eudy v. Eudy, 124
...378 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1967); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). However, the implication of Rule 15(b) and of our decision in Jackson v. Crockarell (475 F.2d 746 (6th Cir.)) is that a trial court may not base its decision upon an issue that was tried inadvertently. Implied consent to the trial of an unpl......
-
Haislah v. Walton
...which is not at issue or is not supported by the evidence. Fleming v. Husted, 164 F.2d 65 (8th Cir. 1947). Jackson v. Crockarell, 475 F.2d 746, 748 (6th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). In Jackson, the plaintiff's husband was shot and killed by a police officer. As in the case at hand, the only jus......
-
Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell, 7718SC841
...Williams, 378 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1967); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). However, the implication of Rule 15(b) and of our decision in Jackson v. Crockarell, 475 F.2d 746 (6th Cir.) is that a trial court may not base its decision upon an issue that was tried inadvertently. Implied consent to the trial o......
-
MBI Motor Co., Inc. v. Lotus/East, Inc., 74-1234
...strategy and presented additional evidence had it realized its exposure to warranty liability. Defendant relies upon Jackson v. Crockarell, 475 F.2d 746, 747 (6th Cir. 1973), in which we 'A review of the record of this case indicates that the statements of counsel in setting out his theory ......