Norman Head v. City of San Diego
Published: Mar. 8, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 6, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 682618 – $0
Judge
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Van Ness H. Bogardus III
(technical)
Defendant
Donald L. Fasching
(technical)
Facts
On Jan. 21, 1994, plaintiff Norman Head's mother asked defendant police officers Ronald Snow, Tracy Dishno, James Newbold and Charles Davis to take the plaintiff, a 47-year-old unemployed man, to a mental hospital for treatment. The plaintiff suffered from a bipolar manic/depressive personality disorder. A canine officer deployed his canine on the plaintiff when the plaintiff came out of his bedroom. The plaintiff claimed that he did not threaten the officers and that the use of the police canine was excessive force. The defendants contended that the plaintiff threatened them with a large object that turned out to be an accordion case with an accordion inside. The plaintiff brought this action against the officers and the city based on violation of civil rights, battery, negligence and false arrest theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $65,000. The defendants made no settlement offers but suggested that they would seek authority for $20,000.
Specials in Evidence
$23,500
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed he suffered punctures in his left thigh resulting in infection.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years after the case was filed. MEDIATION: A mediation was held on Oct. 4,1995 before Robert Treatacosta. It dit not resolve the matter. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert Van Ness Bogardus, III, a police procedures consultant, testified that the police officers lacked probable cause to take the plaintiff into protective custody. He further testified that the officers failed to follow proper procedures in attempting to detain the plaintiff and that the use of the canine was unreasonable force. Defense expert Donald L. Fasching, a police procedures consultant, testified that the officers acted reasonably in attempting to take the plaintiff into protective custody for his mental problem and that the use of the dog was reasonable force in response to the threat presented by the plaintiff.
Deliberation
5 hours
Poll
12-0 (violation of civil rights - excessive force), 11-1 (battery), 10-2 (negligence)
Length
5 to 6 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390