Tardif v. City of New York

Background

Mary Tardif sued the City of New York and others over police officers’ treatment of her during demonstrations associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The claims that reached the relevant trial included New York-law assault and battery claims against Sergeant Thomas McManus individually and a claim seeking to hold the City responsible for alleged assaults and batteries by Sergeant Giovanni Mattera and Sergeant McManus.

After an earlier trial, the jury found for the City and the individual officers. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment concerning Sergeant McManus but vacated the judgment concerning the City’s responsibility for Sergeant Mattera’s alleged assault and battery, sending that remaining claim back for a new trial.

At the 2022 retrial, Tardif testified that Mattera threw her down during a protest on March 21, 2012, causing her head to hit the ground. She testified that she lost consciousness and later experienced headaches, nausea, dizziness, impaired vision, and other symptoms. Her medical experts testified that later brain scans showed an abnormality consistent with a traumatic brain injury and that the injury was permanent. A life-care planner estimated the cost of future medical care at $1,131,062.20, without discounting it to present value.

The jury found for Tardif on battery but not assault. It found the City liable based on the conduct of Mattera and awarded $431,250 in future compensatory damages. Judgment was entered on July 12, 2022. The City then renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, moved alternatively for a new trial under Rule 59, and sought remittitur, meaning a reduction of the damages award.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Rule 50 permits a court to overturn a jury’s verdict when the opposing party lacks a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the verdict. The court must defer to the jury’s credibility decisions and reasonable inferences and may not simply reweigh the evidence.

The City advanced three grounds. First, it sought dismissal of the assault claim. The court held that this issue was moot because the jury had not found the City liable for assault. Second, the City argued that no reasonable jury could find that Mattera’s conduct caused Tardif’s brain injury. Third, it argued that the evidence did not establish that Tardif’s future economic damages were attributable to that injury rather than to other conditions.

The court rejected both remaining arguments. It found that Tardif’s testimony, medical records, medical experts’ testimony, and brain scans provided a legally sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Mattera’s conduct caused the brain injury and that the future medical expenses were attributable to it. The court declined to replace the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and the weight of the evidence with its own. The motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied.

Motion for a New Trial

Under Rule 59, a court may order a new trial if the jury reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. The court described this as a demanding standard and stated that courts should rarely disturb a jury’s credibility determinations.

The City argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the award of no past damages but $431,250 in future damages was inconsistent, and that the award was excessive. The court rejected the first argument because evidence supported the jury’s finding that Mattera’s actions caused Tardif’s brain injury, including testimony about symptoms after the incident and abnormalities appearing on post-incident scans but not the pre-incident scan.

The court ruled that the City waived its inconsistency objection because it did not raise the issue before the jury was discharged. The court also held that, even if the objection had been timely, the verdict could be viewed consistently: the jury could have found that Tardif had not provided enough evidence to calculate past damages while finding that the evidence supported a specific amount of future damages.

Remittitur

The City asked the court to reduce the $431,250 future-damages award as excessive. Because the award arose from a New York-law claim, the court applied New York’s standard asking whether the award materially deviated from reasonable compensation. The court compared the award with other New York cases involving brain injuries and focused on the nature of the injuries rather than solely on the force used.

The jury intended the $431,250 award to compensate Tardif for 48.6 years of future damages, or approximately $8,873 per year. The court concluded that this amount did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation in light of the evidence and comparable awards. It therefore declined to reduce the award.

Disposition

The court denied the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. It also denied the City’s motions for a new trial or remittitur of damages. The court directed the clerk to close the motions and lifted the stay on enforcement of the judgment.