Malicious prosecution damages reduced

A Virginia state court has substantially reduced a jury’s award of $95,000 in compensatory damages and $105,000 in punitive damages in a malicious prosecution case.

Although the plaintiff suffered greatly and incurred almost $100,000 in medical bills, Judge Everett A. Martin of the Norfolk Circuit Court concluded that such damages were not compensable in a malicious prosecution claim.

“[T]he verdict for $95,000 indicates to the Court that the jury misconceived or misconstrued the facts or the law,” Martin wrote.

Because the evidence didn’t support the amounts awarded, the court found “$15,000 to be reasonable compensate[ory] damages [and] $20,000 to be a reasonable and proportionate award of punitive damages.”

The June 27 opinion is Rountree v. Christie (VLW 022-8-026).

Malicious prosecution

In December 2018, Kelvin E. Rountree was riding a bicycle without a headlight. Norfolk police officers attempted to stop Rountree, he did not do so.

Officer Aaron N. Christie chased Rountree on foot and tackled him, fracturing two bones in Rountree’s right leg. Rountree experienced great pain and suffering and incurred medical bills of about $94,600.

Another officer wrote Rountree summonses for riding a bicycle without a light and for obstruction of justice, but he wasn’t arrested.

While Rountree was still in the hospital, he and Christie discussed the matter while being recorded on a bodycam.

Rountree asked if he could just be given a ticket or a warning, but Christie responded: ‘No. All of this. It’s out of our hands now, because — I mean — All these fractures and all these complications. We have to do things just follow … procedures by the book right now. It’s not in our hands anymore. If we don’t do something, I’m sure you’re going to do something … We’ve got to do what we’ve got to do, bro.” 

Rountree pleaded guilty to the headlight ticket and, after he was acquitted of the obstruction charge, sued Christie for gross negligence, battery and malicious prosecution.

Rountree died of unrelated causes while his case was pending and an uncle was substituted as plaintiff. 

The jury found for Rountree on the malicious prosecution claim and awarded $95,000 in compensatory damages and $105,000 in punitive damages. Jurors found for Christie on the remaining claims. 

Christie moved to strike the malicious prosecution claim, or in the alternative, for remittitur. 

Motion to strike 

Martin said it served no purpose to review all the evidence.

“Suffice it to say there was evidence from which a jury could conclude there was a lack of probable cause to charge Rountree with obstruction of justice, and as Instruction No. 28 informed the jury: Malice may be inferred from a lack of probable cause,’” Martin wrote.

Further, the judge said there was evidence “from which the jury could conclude that Christie charged Rountree with obstruction of justice not in the interest of seeing justice done, but to excuse or justify his tackling of Rountree and causing him serious injury.” 

Compensatory damages

Remittitur requires more than finding a jury award to be excessive simply because it was less than what a judge would have awarded, Martin wrote. The award must be “so great as to shock the conscience of the court and to create the impression that the jury has been motivated by passion, corruption, or prejudice, or has misconceived or misconstrued the facts or the law, or … the award [must be] so out of proportion to the injuries suffered so as to suggest it is not the product of a fair and impartial decision.”

Citing a 2019 decision from the Norfolk Circuit Court, Martin wrote that “no matter how a circuit court judge dresses up his conclusion on remittitur, it will seem arbitrary to someone. Stingy, no doubt, to the plaintiff, and probably still excessive to the defendant.”

The judge acknowledged the many ways a malicious prosecution can cause significant damages, such as arrest, incarceration, loss of property and income, loss of work or clients and attorneys’ fees.

“Rountree, however, suffered none of these damages,” Martin found, because he was not arrested and his attorney was court-appointed.

“No matter how a circuit court judge dresses up his conclusion on remittitur, it will seem arbitrary to someone. Stingy, no doubt, to the plaintiff, and probably still excessive to the defendant.”

– Judge Everett A. Martin

Although it was reasonable to believe Rountree suffered some distress during the prosecution, the judge said it was not reasonable to believe he suffered “great distress” because he never testified about it.

Rountree also never testified about increased stress due to his probationary status, the judge pointed out.

While the jury learned of Rountree’s family, degree, employment, felony convictions and short incarceration, the judge found no evidence of harm to his reputation.

Although Rountree claimed the court hearings were inconvenient and his post-surgical boot was uncomfortable, the judge held that the instruction agreed to at trial didn’t include inconvenience as damages for malicious prosecution.

“Thus, the only items of compensatory damage the jury could properly consider for the malicious prosecution claim were stress and injury to reputation … but there was no testimony about any of these,” he wrote.

As a result, the judge found the “verdict for malicious prosecution to be grossly excessive and entirely out of proportion to the injuries Rountree suffered.”

Martin said the jury “wished to compensate [Rountree] for his medical expenses,” but that wasn’t allowed pursuant to the malicious prosecution instruction. Therefore, the judge concluded that $15,000 was reasonable compensation for Rountree’s damages. 

Punitive damages 

Martin said the jury’s punitive damages award was reasonable in relation to the original compensatory award but wasn’t reasonable now that it had been reduced.

Here, the jury “likely concluded that punishment is warranted to a police officer who issues a baseless criminal charge,” the judge wrote. But “Christie’s conduct was ameliorated by his issuance of a summons rather than arresting Rountree.”

Martin was not persuaded by Rountree’s argument that Christie issued a summons because he knew a magistrate would not issue a warrant, opining “he who claims the ability to predict the actions of a magistrate or judge plays a dangerous game.”

The judge noted that the jury’s original punitive damages award was 1.1 times the amount of compensatory damages, and concluded that was proportional.

Using that formula, he found that $20,000 was a reasonable and proportionate award of punitive damages, and gave Rountree the choice of accepting the remittitur or having a new trial limited to damages.