Bruner v. Dunaway

Incident Summary & Facts

On April 23, 1979, Gerald Bruner was asleep in his car parked next to a school building in Knoxville, Tennessee, when Officer Tinder woke him and ordered him out. The accounts diverge sharply. Bruner testified that Tinder began striking him with a flashlight or club and that he ran out of fear for his safety. Tinder testified that Bruner assaulted him during a frisk, which led Tinder to strike him with a nightstick, after which Bruner pushed the officer to the ground and fled.

Responding to Tinder’s radio call for help, Officers Bates and Taylor and Christian Castellaw (an explorer scout acting as a reserve officer) searched for and chased Bruner. Bruner said that in an alley he was confronted by Castellaw, struck on the head, then repeatedly struck and kicked by others and dragged down the alley. Castellaw testified that Bruner attacked him and that he hit Bruner in the side of the head with his flashlight. Taylor and Bates said they arrived during the struggle and helped restrain Bruner. Other officers testified that they arrived only after Bruner was subdued or handcuffed. Medical evidence showed a severe skull fracture that permanently reduced Bruner’s intellectual capacity, along with post-traumatic epilepsy.

Procedural posture: In this § 1983 suit, a first jury awarded $300,000 against all defendants. The district court set the verdict aside and ordered a new trial because personal involvement had not been shown for several officers. At the second trial, the court directed verdicts for three officers, and the jury returned a $100,000 verdict against Bates, Taylor and Castellaw. Both sides appealed.

Core Legal Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a new trial after the first verdict, given Bruner’s argument that officers who did not strike him could be liable for failing to intervene? And was the second verdict against Bates, Taylor and Castellaw, including the $100,000 damages award, properly left standing?

The Holding

The Sixth Circuit affirmed in all respects. The new-trial order was not an abuse of discretion because the record supported the finding that some defendants were not present during the beating. The jury could reasonably find that Bates, Taylor and Castellaw used excessive and unreasonable force, and the $100,000 award did not warrant remittitur.

The Court’s Analysis:

• Failure to intervene recognized: Relying on Byrd v. Brishke (7th Cir. 1972) and its own Smith v. Ross, the court said it is “not necessary, in order to hold a police officer liable under § 1983, to demonstrate that the officer actively participated in striking a plaintiff.” An officer present at the scene may not “fail to stop other officers who summarily punish a third person in his presence.”
• Presence is the predicate: The new trial still stood on the district court’s alternative ground. Even under a presence-based theory, the evidence did not show that all defendants were present while the assault occurred. Two officers testified that they arrived after Bruner was subdued, and the evidence suggested the assault happened before he was subdued.
• Deferential review: Grants and denials of new trials are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. A jury verdict “should be accepted if it is one which could reasonably have been reached.”
• Restraint can become excessive force: Bates, Taylor and Castellaw were involved in restraining Bruner, and the jury was entitled to find that “in so doing, they had employed excessive and unreasonable force.”
• Damages: Given the skull fracture, permanent cognitive loss and post-traumatic epilepsy, the court declined to disturb the award.