In Alves v. County of Riverside, published April 29, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a district court's decision declining to grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury trial. The defendant deputies encountered a bleeding man speaking incoherently and engaged in unusual behavior. The deputies believed the man was under the influence of a controlled substance or experiencing a mental health crisis. As the deputies approached the man, he stood up and advanced toward them. The deputies repeatedly tased the man as he advanced twice toward the deputies. The deputies struggled to handcuff the man as he lay face down. One deputy placed a knee on the man's back. The man rolled to his side, and the deputies continued pinning him down. The man became silent and stopped breathing. The deputies rolled the man on his back. Paramedics arrived and transported the man to the hospital, where he died. The decedent's successor-in-interest sued the county and deputies under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs, and under California law for violation of the Bane Act, negligence, and battery. The claims for excessive force, battery, and negligence were tried to a jury. The jury found unanimously for the defendants on the 4th Amendment excessive force and state law battery claims, but found unanimously for plaintiff on her state law negligence claim. It apportioned 20% fault to the deputies and 80% to the decedent. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the verdicts were inconsistent. The district court ruled the verdicts could be reconciled.
The 9th Circuit agreed. Courts must search for a reasonable way to read verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case, and determine whether it is possible to reconcile the verdicts on any reasonable theory consistent with the evidence. Here, the jury's finding that the officers did not use excessive force may be reconciled with the finding that the deputies were negligent. 4th Amendment jurisprudence and California negligence law are two distinct legal frameworks. Both bodies of law focus on whether an officer's use of deadly force has been reasonable under a totality of the circumstances. But based on the California Supreme Court's decision in Hayes v. County of San Diego, the 4th Amendment's reasonableness standard is not the same as the standard of reasonable care under tort law, and negligent acts do not incur constitutional liability. State negligence law, which considers the totality of circumstances surrounding use of deadly force, is broader than 4th Amendment law, which tends to focus more narrowly on the moment when force is used. Since Hayes was decided, the 9th Circuit has repeatedly held that California negligence law is broader than federal 4th Amendment law. The 9th Circuit rejected the contention that Hayes applies only to whether tactical conduct and decisions before use of lethal force is used are considered. Here, for the 4th Amendment claim, the jury was instructed to consider whether the deputies' use of force and restraint was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, based on the Graham v. Connor factors. For the negligence claim, the jury was asked whether the deputies were negligent in using unreasonable force or restrain, based on a totality of circumstances that included all facts known to the deputies at the time, including their conduct leading up to the use of force or restraint. From the expert evidence provided, the jurors could have reasonably determined the deputies owed the decedent a duty of care after restraining him in handcuffs and breached the duty by failing to place him in a recovery position, failing to check whether he was breathing and had a pulse, or applying pressure on his back when it was no longer necessary, even though they concluded the deputies did not use excessive force.
Leave a Reply