Daley v. The City of Orlando et al

Filing 117

ORDER denying 112 Motion for New Trial or Remittitur and directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge John Antoon II on 10/30/2012. (EK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DANIEL DALEY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 6:11-cv-758-Orl-28TBS

TRAVIS LAMONT,
Defendant.
______________________________________

ORDER
This case was tried to a jury over a five-day period in August 2012. The jury returned
a verdict finding that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional right to be free from
excessive or unreasonable force and awarded Plaintiff $750,000.00 for bodily injury, pain
and suffering, disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, and loss of
capacity for the enjoyment of life. (Verdict, Doc. 104). The jury also awarded Plaintiff
$120,000.00 for past medical care and $10,000.00 for future medical care. (Id. at 2).
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for New Trial or Remittitur (Doc. 112),
which is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and (e). Defendant
argues that he is entitled to a new trial due to exclusion of some evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s consumption of alcohol. Defendant also argues that the $750,000.00 damages
award was excessive and that the $10,000.00 award for future medical care is without
evidentiary support.
“On a Rule 59 motion, a district court may set aside the jury’s verdict and grant a new
trial only if ‘(1) the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, or (2) [the verdict] is
based upon evidence which is false, or (3) [the verdict] will result in a miscarriage of justice,

even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a
verdict.’” Hughston v. New Home Media, 552 F. Supp. 2d 559, 570 (E.D. Va. 2008) (quoting
Bennett v. Fairfax Cnty., 432 F. Supp. 2d 596, 602 (E.D. Va. 2006)). None of these
circumstances is present here, and thus Defendant’s motion is denied insofar as it seeks a
new trial.
Defendant also seeks remittitur of the $750,000.00 damages award to $100,000.00,
arguing that this award was excessive. However, the Court cannot conclude that the jury’s
award “exceeds the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly
operate.” Warren v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 693 F.2d 1373, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982) (quotation
and citation omitted). The motion is thus also denied with regard to the request for remittitur.
Finally, Defendant asserts that the $10,000.00 award for future medical care should
be vacated as without evidentiary basis. This contention is also rejected.
In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial or Remittitur (Doc. 112) is DENIED in all
respects.
2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this 30th day of October, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-2-