This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Excessive Force
Wrongful Death

Chris Willis, Mary Willis, individually and successors in interest to Stephen Willis v. City Of Fresno, Greg Catton, Daniel Astacio and Jerry Dyer

Published: Jan. 25, 2014 | Result Date: Dec. 17, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:09-cv-01766-BAM Verdict –  $1,510,220

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Peter J. Koenig
(Walker Hamilton & Koenig LLP)

Walter H. Walker III
(Walker, Hamilton & Kearns LLP)

Beau R. Burbidge
(Walker, Hamilton & Koenig LLP)


Defendant

Roy C. Santos

Tamara Bogosian

James D. Weakley
(Weakley & Arendt APC)

Brande L. Gustafson
(Weakley & Arendt LLP)


Facts

Chris Willis and Mary Willis, the parents of Stephen Willis, filed a wrongful death suit against the City of Fresno, based on their son's death on March 28, 2009.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that on March 28, Stephen was parking in a marked parking space in front of his apartment complex. He moved to the trunk of his car to remove a firearm that had been used earlier that day at a shooting range. Police officers nearby then began opening fire on Stephen without warning, and without identifying themselves. They shot him 14 times, killing him.

Plaintiffs alleged that shooting Stephen was unnecessary, and that there were reasonable alternatives the officers could have taken to learn Stephen's identity and to communicate with him.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violation of the Fourth Amendment, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and inadequate and reckless training.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The city denied plaintiffs' allegations, and asserted various affirmative defenses. They also claimed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably believed that their actions were constitutional.

Result

The jury found that one of the officers used excessive force, and that his actions were negligent. The jury found that plaintiffs were entitled to a total of $1,510,224. However, the jury found that Stephen was also negligent, and that his negligence was a substantial factor in his harm. The jury attributed 80 percent of the fault to Stephen, and 20 percent to one officer, thereby reducing the award to $302,045.


#100228

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390