Opinion
1:01CV00269
February 28, 2003
JUDGMENT
This civil action came on for trial before the court and a jury beginning February 18, 2003, and the issues having been duly tried and answered by the jury as follows as Plaintiff Scot Wallace Dawson:
1. Did the Defendant Roger Hair violate Plaintiff Scot Dawson's constitutional rights by using excessive force during the arrest of the Plaintiff Scot Dawson?
No Yes/No
2. Did the Defendant J.V. Thomas violate Plaintiff Scot Dawson's constitutional rights by using excessive force during the arrest of the Plaintiff Scot Dawson?
No Yes/No
3. Did the Defendant Randolph Howell violate Plaintiff Scot Dawson's constitutional rights by using excessive force against Mr. Dawson while he was on the ground and in custody?
No Yes/No
4. Only if you find that one or more of the Defendants Hair, Thomas, or Howell used excessive force during Plaintiff Scot Dawson's arrest, what amount, if any actual damages, is the Plaintiff Scot Dawson entitled to recover?
__________________ Amount
5. Only if you find that Scot Dawson is entitled to compensation for actual damages in No. 4 above, what amount, if any punitive damages, is Plaintiff entitled to recover from Defendant Hair?
__________________ Amount
6. Only if you find that Scot Dawson is entitled to compensation for actual damages in No. 4 above, what amount, if any punitive damages, is Plaintiff entitled to recover from Defendant Thomas?
__________________ Amount
7. Only if you find that Scot Dawson is entitled to compensation for actual damages in No. 4 above, what amount, if any punitive damages, is Plaintiff entitled to recover from Defendant Howell?
__________________ Amount
8. Did Sheriff Sam Page demonstrate deliberate indifference by failing to have adequate procedures in place for his deputies, or did he fail to require compliance with proper standards in place for his deputies during the arrest caused by the deputies?
Yes/No
9. Only if you answer No. 8 above "Yes," then did the failure to have or to enforce necessary procedures cause excessive force to be used against Plaintiff Scot Dawson?
Yes/No
As to Plaintiff Victoria Dawson:
1. Did the Defendant Roger Hair violate Plaintiff Victoria Dawson's constitutional rights by using excessive force during the arrest of the Plaintiff Victoria Dawson?
No Yes/No
2. Only if you find that Defendant Roger Hair used excessive force during the arrest of Victoria Dawson, what amount, if any of actual damages, is the Plaintiff Victoria Dawson entitled to recover?
__________________ Amount
3. Only if you find that Victoria Dawson is entitled to recover compensation for actual damages in No. 2 above, what amount, if any of punitive damages, is Plaintiff Victoria Dawson entitled to recover from Defendant Hair?
__________________ Amount
4. Did Sheriff Sam Page demonstrate deliberate indifference by failing to have adequate procedures in place for his deputies, or did he fail to require compliance with proper standards in place for his deputies during the arrest caused by the deputies?
Yes/No
5. Only if you answer No. 4 above "Yes," then did the failure to have or to enforce necessary procedures cause excessive force to be used against Plaintiff Victoria Dawson?
Yes/No
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Scot Wallace Dawson and Victoria Dawson recover nothing from Defendants Sam Page, Roger Hampton Hair, J.V. Thomas, or Randolph Edward Howell.