Danny McCadney v. Louis Hamilton
706 F. App'x 188
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Danny McCadney, a Louisiana prisoner, alleged head, neck, and shoulder injuries when Sergeant Louis Hamilton kicked his cell door shut, catching McCadney in the door.
- Jury found Hamilton did not violate McCadney’s constitutional rights but was negligent, awarded $5,000 in damages, and assigned McCadney 45% fault.
- District court entered an amended judgment to correct a clerical error; McCadney moved under Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment, arguing the damage award was inadequate and that comparative fault was improperly submitted and produced an inconsistent verdict.
- The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion; McCadney appealed the amended judgment and the denial of the motion.
- On appeal, court reviewed the Rule 59(e) denial and the district court’s handling of comparative-fault as an affirmative defense for abuse of discretion and manifest error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether comparative-fault defense was waived for failure to plead | McCadney: Hamilton waived comparative fault by not pleading it in answer or pretrial order | Hamilton: Comparative fault was litigated; plaintiff was not unfairly surprised | Court: No waiver; district court did not abuse discretion in allowing instruction |
| Whether failure to plead comparative fault required exclusion under Rule 8(c) | McCadney: Failure to plead is fatal and inconsistent with general denial | Hamilton: Technical failure is excused where no unfair surprise or prejudice | Court: Rule 8(c) noncompliance not fatal absent unfair surprise; none shown |
| Whether jury interrogatory on comparative fault was confusing/inconsistent | McCadney: Verdict inconsistent (negligence found but only nominal damages) and interrogatory confusing | Hamilton: Evidence supported allocation and low damages given other causes of injury | Court: Evidence permitted jury’s allocation; no manifest factual error or abuse of discretion |
| Whether damages award was grossly inadequate and should be amended | McCadney: $5,000 with 45% fault insufficient given injuries | Hamilton: Evidence supported jury’s finding that injuries had other causes, justifying award | Court: No manifest error in damages; Rule 59(e) relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e) appropriate to correct manifest error of law or fact)
- Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 304 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 59(e) motions)
- Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1997) (timely appeal from denial of post-judgment motion brings amended judgment up for review)
- Ellis v. Weasler Eng’g Inc., 258 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.) (juries allocate fault under Louisiana law)
- Allied Chem. Corp. v. Mackay, 695 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1983) (technical Rule 8(c) failures excused if no unfair surprise)
- LSREF2 Baron, L.L.C. v. Tauch, 751 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 2014) (district court’s determination of unfair surprise reviewed for abuse of discretion)