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
Wrongful Death
Excessive Force

Ann Price v. County of San Diego

Published: May 30, 1998 | Result Date: Jan. 9, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 941917 Bench Verdict –  $0

Judge

John S. Rhoades Jr.

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James W. Street

Charles Woods


Defendant

Ricky R. Sanchez
(Office of the San Diego County Counsel)


Experts

Plaintiff

Richard D. Jones
(Jones Mayer) (medical)

Lou Reiter
(technical)

Janet Goldfarb
(medical)

James Copley
(technical)

Richard Sobel
(medical)

Robert R. McFarlane
(medical)

Robert R. Trout
(technical)

Donald Reay
(medical)

Defendant

Shelly Cochlin
(medical)

Thomas S. Neuman
(medical)

Elmer J. Pellegrino
(technical)

Joseph Shannon
(medical)

M. Daniel Close
(technical)

Facts

On June 28, 1994, Poway Sheriff's deputies confronted the decedent, a 35-year-old unemployed man, whom they deemed violent, and placed him in a four-point restraint (commonly referred to as a hogtie). The decedent lost consciousness after he was hogtied, then died two days later at a local hospital. The hospital's pulmonary consultant opined that the decedent's death was cardiac arrest possibly due to exertion and methamphetamine ingestion. The medical examiner's autopsy report concluded that the decedent died from positional asphyxia caused by the application of the hogtie. The plaintiffs, the decedent's wife, parents and two minor children, brought this wrongful death action against the defendant for excessive use of force in violation of the 4th Amendment, battery, and negligence. The plaintiff also sued the county and the sheriff then in office for municipal federal civil rights violation, and negligent training and supervision for permitting its deputies to use the hogtie and not training the deputies about the restraint's purported asphyxial risk.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $1.4 million. (Per defendant, the plaintiff demanded $4 million.) The defendants made no settlement offers.

Specials in Evidence

$20,000 $583,664 (present value), $7,500 for funeral expenses

Injuries

Death of husband/father.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately three years and one month after the case was filed. The plaintiff appealed, but dismissed the appeal in return for a waiver of costs. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Prior to trial, at defense counsel's request, the University of California San Diego Medical Center conducted a scientific study to determine the effects the prone hogtie restraint had upon pulmonary gas exchange function. The study "Custody Restraint Position and Positional Asphyxia," conclusively determined that the prone hogtie position does not cause asphyxia, i.e., the restraint position neither causes a decrease in arterial blood oxygen levels, nor an increase in blood carbon dioxide levels. The study also provided the first air flows measurements for persons in the prone hogtie position. The study was published in the November 1997 issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine. An abstract of the study was published in the May 1997 issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 4, no. 5. Before the UCSD study was available, plaintiffs' medical expert, Dr. Donald Reay, the originator of the hogtie-positional asphyxia hypothesis, opined at deposition that Price's death was caused by positional asphyxia due to application of the hogtie in the prone position. At trial, and in light of the UCSD study, he retracted his hypothesis and acknowledged that the hypothesis was medically fallacious. Reay then testified that the prone hogtie position was a physiologically neutral position with no adverse physiological effects.


#80019

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

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