Timpa v. The City of Dallas, 3:16-cv-03089

Tony Timpa died while in custody of Dallas police officers in 2016; his mother and son brought a wrongful death suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dallas police officers, with his father, Joe Timpa, later intervening as a plaintiff.
Following a trial, the jury found the defendants responsible for Timpa's death but determined that three of the four officers were protected by qualified immunity.
The jury awarded $1 million in damages only to Timpa’s minor son, K.T.; Joe Timpa (the father) and other plaintiffs received no damages.
After a settlement with most plaintiffs, Joe Timpa, having not settled, moved for a new trial solely on damages, arguing that the failure to award him damages was an abuse of the jury's discretion.
The court addressed whether the jury erred in denying emotional damages to Joe Timpa and whether a new trial on damages was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was it an abuse of discretion to award no damages to Joe Timpa?	The jury was required to award damages for his emotional suffering as the decedent’s father.	No requirement to award emotional damages; jury could disbelieve Joe Timpa’s evidence.	No abuse; jury’s finding is supported by evidence and legal standards.
Are damages for emotional suffering presumed under Section 1983 or Texas law?	Emotional harm should entitle recovery upon proof of liability.	Non-economic damages are not presumed and must be proven; jury found evidence lacking.	Damages are not presumed; must be supported by sufficient evidence.
Should the court grant a new trial due to alleged jury error or lack of damages?	The jury’s zero damages decision was unjust and unsupported by evidence.	Recent verdicts allow denial of damages to some plaintiffs even with liability.	No new trial; evidence was sufficient for the jury’s zero damages award.
Whether the jury unreasonably ignored evidence supporting Joe Timpa’s relationship and pain	Jury necessarily ignored strong evidence of a close relationship and pain.	Jury could reasonably disbelieve based on evidence inconsistencies and defense testimony.	Jury had ample basis to find for defendants on damages.

Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 1999) (new trial requires showing prejudicial error or failure of substantial justice)
Arceneaux v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 15 F.3d 1079 (5th Cir. 1994) (jury may award damages to only some plaintiffs in wrongful death)
Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (non-economic damages for emotional harm must be proven)
Saenz v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996) (damages for pain and suffering not presumed)
Parkway v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (requirement to prove mental anguish damages)
Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc., 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) (jury verdict may be overturned only for absence of evidence)