Smith v. City of Shreveport
2011 La. App. LEXIS 1070
| La. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Smith, an 18-year-old, was confronted by Officers White and Duck during a Terry stop in the Allendale area for walking in a street without a sidewalk.
- Smith fled from the officers, was chased, fell over a cyclone fence, and was apprehended on the ground with Smith claiming excessive force occurred.
- EMS and hospital records show a small eyelid laceration and shoulder pain; no fractures or long-term disabilities were documented.
- Smith sued the City and officers for multiple state and federal claims, which were narrowed to state claims of excessive force, assault and battery, wrongful arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after summary judgment.
- A bench trial awarded Smith $10,400.93 in general and special damages, with 51% fault to the officers and 49% to Smith, and expert fees and costs allocated accordingly.
- Smith appeals, challenging the fault allocation, extent of force, damages, and attorney-fee issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the officers' fault allocation clearly wrong? | Smith contends officers caused the incident and fault should be higher for them. | City asserts the trial court reasonably allocated fault considering Smith's flight and the circumstances. | No manifest error; 51% to officers, 49% to Smith within reasonable range. |
| Did the court err by not detailing the extent of force used? | Smith argues lack of precise force extent undermines compensation. | Court reasonably evaluated actions and credibility; no need for exact force tally. | Not reversible; general damages adequately reflect force finding. |
| Was the general/special damages award of $10,400.93 proper? | Smith asserts damages undervalue harms and costs after apportionment. | Evidence supports modest injuries; damages fall within trial court discretion. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion given limited injuries and evidence. |
| Should attorney fees for constitutional claims be awarded? | Smith seeks attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983/1988 for constitutional violations. | Federal claims were dismissed by summary judgment and no fees available. | Denied; no merit since federal claims were resolved on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sims, 851 So.2d 1039 ((La. 2003)) (no right to resist an unlawful stop-and-frisk)
- Detraz v. Lee, 950 So.2d 557 ((La. 2007)) (manifest error standard in civil cases)
- Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 874 So.2d 90 ((La. 2004)) (manifest error/deference in appellate review)
- Rabalais v. Nash, 952 So.2d 653 ((La. 2007)) (appellate deference to trial-court factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 ((La. 1989)) (credibility determinations on appeal)
- Easter v. Direct Ins. Co., 957 So.2d 323 ((La. App. 2d Cir. 2007)) (factors affecting fault allocation in negligence)
- Fontenot v. Patterson Ins. Co., 23 So.3d 259 ((La. 2009)) (range of reasonable fault allocations; deference to trial court)
- Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp. & Development, 617 So.2d 880 ((La. 1993)) (factual review standard; manifest error framework)
- Williams v. Ruben Residential Properties, LLC, 58 So.3d 534 ((La. 2011)) (general damages discretion and appellate review limits)
- Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 773 So.2d 670 ((La. 2000)) (evaluation of damages in civil cases)